JPTi Inputs for the Universal Periodic Review – 52nd Session (4–15 May 2026, Geneva)

States under Review: Namibia, Niger, Mozambique, Estonia, Paraguay, Belgium, Denmark, Palau, Somalia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Latvia, Sierra Leone, and Singapore

On 20 April 2026, Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) prepared and published its inputs as concise, evidence-based briefing materials intended to assist United Nations Member States during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) 52. Their purpose is to draw focused attention to systemic human rights challenges in each State under review, based on available credible international documentation, including compilations prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

These materials are designed not only to highlight systemic, structural, and recurring patterns of concern relating to the implementation of international human rights obligations by governments, in particular through National Mechanisms for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up (NMIRFs) and independent National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), but also to support constructive engagement within the UPR process by proposing targeted, actionable recommendations aimed at addressing identified gaps and strengthening compliance with international human rights obligations.

The full text of these inputs is publicly available below, and the complete document may be downloaded here:

JPTi Inputs for the Universal Periodic Review – 52nd Session (4–15 May 2026 Geneva).pdf

Download PDF • 567KB

For NAMIBIA (Date of consideration: Monday 4 May 2026 – 09:00 – 12:30)

The situation in Namibia can be understood by examining issues related to land rights, historical inequalities, and the protection of Indigenous and marginalised communities, particularly the San, Ovaherero, and Nama peoples, and situating these within broader patterns affecting the enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights.

While Namibia maintains a generally stable human rights framework, concerns persist regarding access to land and natural resources, particularly for historically dispossessed communities. Land distribution remains highly unequal, reflecting the legacy of colonial-era dispossession and apartheid-era structures, which continue to produce significant disparities in access to livelihoods, housing, education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. In this context, ongoing discussions relating to ancestral land claims and reparations, including those linked to historical injustices, raise important questions regarding equitable resource distribution, historical justice, and inclusive decision-making processes, as reflected in the OHCHR stakeholders’ summary (A/HRC/WG.6/52/NAM/3) and the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/NAM/2).

These concerns have also been reflected in multiple United Nations Special Procedures communications. In particular, JAL NAM 1/2023 (23 February 2023) raised concerns regarding the exclusion of Ovaherero and Nama communities from negotiations on reparations linked to the 1904–1908 genocide, while JAL NAM 1/2024 (12 September 2024) addressed the impact of infrastructure development on a genocide memorial site without adequate consultation. Earlier, JAL NAM 2/2021 (17 November 2021) highlighted the implications of oil and gas exploration for San communities, particularly in relation to land use and environmental impacts. Further concerns relating to economic, social, and environmental rights were raised in OL NAM 1/2022 (12 May 2022), concerning access to water and affordability, and in JAL NAM 1/2025 (11 June 2025), concerning alleged human rights impacts linked to industrial activities, including environmental and health implications for affected communities.

Indigenous communities, in particular the San, continue to face structural marginalisation, including limited access to land, education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. These challenges are compounded by geographic isolation and socio-economic exclusion, affecting their full participation in public life and decision-making processes. In this context, it is notable that Namibia does not formally recognise certain communities as Indigenous Peoples under international human rights law, which has implications for the application of international standards relating to land rights, participation, and free, prior and informed consent, as highlighted in the OHCHR compilation.

Additional concerns relate to disparities in access to essential services, particularly in rural and remote areas, where access to quality healthcare, education, water, and social protection remains uneven. At the same time, Namibia continues to face significant challenges in addressing gender-based violence, which remains widespread and raises concerns regarding access to justice, protection mechanisms, and support services for victims. Concerns have also been raised regarding the use of force by law enforcement authorities and the need to ensure full compliance with international standards, including accountability for excessive use of force, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

With regard to engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, the available record indicates that nine communications were addressed to Namibia during the reporting period, of which four received replies, reflecting a response rate below fifty per cent. This pattern demonstrates a fragmented and inconsistent approach to engagement with Special Procedures. Namibia has not issued a standing invitation to Special Procedures, and visit requests remain pending, which may limit opportunities for sustained and transparent engagement with international mechanisms, as noted in the OHCHR compilation. In this context, while elements of coordination exist within the executive, they do not appear to operate as a fully systematic and institutionalised framework. It has therefore not been possible to verify from publicly available sources that Namibia has established or clearly designated a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up (NMIRF), as encouraged by Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33. Available information indicates that reporting and follow-up rely on coordination among government institutions, including line ministries and central authorities, which may affect overall coherence and effectiveness in the implementation of international human rights obligations.

Namibia benefits from an established National Human Rights Institution, the Office of the Ombudsman, which is accredited with “A status” by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, indicating full compliance with the Paris Principles. The Ombudsman has a broad constitutional mandate, including the investigation of complaints and the promotion of human rights. However, concerns have been raised regarding its limited financial and operational autonomy and delays in adopting legislative reforms to strengthen its mandate, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

In practice, additional concerns relate to the effective exercise of this mandate. Notably, no submission by the Namibian NHRI appears to have been made in the context of the Universal Periodic Review cycle 52, indicating that its independent voice is not consistently reflected at the international level. The withdrawal of the Ombudsman Bill (2024), following parliamentary objections, further highlights challenges in strengthening institutional independence, particularly in relation to the appointment process, which concentrates authority within the executive and judicial branches. Persistent financial and staffing constraints continue to limit the Ombudsman’s investigative capacity and its ability to reach remote communities. Moreover, recommendations issued by the Office are frequently not implemented by government authorities, reducing their practical impact.

At the same time, there is limited publicly available evidence of independent and systematic engagement by the Ombudsman with communications and recommendations issued by United Nations human rights mechanisms. The absence of visible independent analyses or structured follow-up findings raises questions regarding the effectiveness of the NHRI’s role in monitoring implementation and ensuring accountability.

Taken together, these elements point to persistent structural inequalities affecting the full enjoyment of rights by marginalised communities, particularly Indigenous peoples and women, alongside gaps in institutional coordination, independent monitoring, and effective engagement with international human rights mechanisms.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure that land reform policies promote equitable access to land and natural resources for historically dispossessed and marginalised communities, including Indigenous peoples.

·       Ensure that processes relating to ancestral land claims and reparations are conducted in an inclusive, transparent, and rights-based manner, with the meaningful participation of affected communities.

·       Ensure full respect for the principle of free, prior and informed consent in relation to development, extractive, and infrastructure projects affecting Indigenous lands and cultural heritage.

·       Consider recognising Indigenous Peoples in accordance with international human rights standards, ensuring that such recognition is accompanied by effective protection of land rights and participation in decision-making processes.

·       Enhance access to quality healthcare, education, water, and social services in rural and underserved areas, with particular attention to Indigenous communities.

·       Strengthen measures to prevent and address gender-based violence, including by improving access to justice, protection mechanisms, and comprehensive support services for victims.

·       Ensure that law enforcement authorities operate in full compliance with international human rights standards, including on the use of force, and strengthen accountability mechanisms.

·       Strengthen the independence, resources, and operational effectiveness of the Office of the Ombudsman, including by addressing structural constraints and ensuring that its recommendations are effectively implemented by public authorities.

·       Ensure that the National Human Rights Institution actively engages with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including through independent submissions, monitoring, and follow-up to recommendations and communications.

·       Ensure systematic, coordinated, and substantive engagement with United Nations Special Procedures, including by providing timely and comprehensive responses to all communications, issuing a standing invitation, and facilitating country visits by mandate holders.

·       Consider ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and establishing a national preventive mechanism in line with international standards.

·       Consider establishing or clearly designating a comprehensive NMIRF, in line with Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33, to ensure coordinated, systematic, and effective implementation of international human rights obligations.

For Niger (Date of consideration: Monday 4 May 2026 – 14:30 – 18:00)

The situation in Niger can be understood in light of recent political developments, including the events of July 2023, widely characterised as a coup d’état, and the broader security context, and their combined impact on the protection of fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, political participation, and access to justice.

Following these developments, concerns have been raised regarding the suspension of constitutional order and the functioning of democratic institutions. The Constitution of 2010 has been suspended, and the process of developing a new constitutional framework remains ongoing, raising important questions regarding the incorporation of international human rights obligations, including guarantees of equality and non-discrimination, into the future legal order, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/NER/2).

Restrictions affecting political parties, civil society organisations, and public participation have been reported, raising concerns regarding the protection of civic space and inclusive governance during the transition period. Additional concerns relate to limitations on media freedom and freedom of expression, including reports of arrests, restrictions on independent reporting, and pressures affecting journalists and media actors. These developments have implications for transparency, public accountability, and access to information, as reflected in the OHCHR stakeholders’ summary (A/HRC/WG.6/52/NER/3).

At the same time, Niger continues to face significant security challenges linked to the activities of armed groups in several regions, contributing to displacement, humanitarian needs, and vulnerabilities affecting access to education, healthcare, and basic services. Verified information indicates that civilians continue to be killed in attacks by non-State armed groups, while incidents involving violations attributable to defence and security forces, including unlawful killings and allegations of enforced disappearances, have also been documented. These dynamics raise serious concerns regarding the protection of civilians, accountability, and compliance with international human rights law and international humanitarian law, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

These conditions disproportionately affect children, women, and rural communities. Reports confirm grave violations against children in the context of armed conflict, including recruitment, sexual violence, abduction, and attacks on schools and hospitals. At the same time, widespread food insecurity and chronic malnutrition, affecting a significant proportion of the population, further exacerbate vulnerability and limit the enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights, particularly in conflict-affected regions, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

Concerns also arise regarding the administration of justice, including allegations of arbitrary detention, restrictions on peaceful assembly, judicial harassment of human rights defenders, and limitations on access to effective remedies. These concerns are compounded by structural issues, including the absence of a comprehensive transitional justice and reparations framework, despite documented violations, which affects access to accountability and redress for victims, as highlighted in the OHCHR compilation.

Additional structural challenges relate to persistent discrimination, including descent-based discrimination and the continued existence of slavery-like practices. Reports indicate limited enforcement, lack of systematic investigations, and insufficient accountability for perpetrators, which undermines equality and access to justice, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

Gender-based violence remains a significant concern, including domestic and sexual violence, with gaps in criminalisation, including the absence of explicit criminalisation of marital rape, and limited availability of protection and support services for victims. Social stigma, underreporting, and low prosecution rates further affect access to justice and effective remedies, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

These concerns have also been reflected in multiple United Nations Special Procedures communications. In particular, JAL NER 1/2021 (26 April 2021) raised concerns regarding allegations of arbitrary detention in connection with protests. JAL NER 2/2021 (20 October 2021) and JAL NER 2/2023 (20 December 2023) addressed allegations of judicial harassment of journalists and human rights defenders. OL NER 1/2022 (19 January 2022) raised concerns regarding access to water and sanitation. JAL NER 1/2023 (12 June 2023) addressed arrests and detention of human rights defenders and restrictions on fundamental freedoms. JAL NER 1/2025 (17 April 2025) addressed issues related to transitional justice and reparations. JAL NER 2/2025 (28 May 2025) and JAL NER 3/2025 (16 September 2025) raised concerns regarding arbitrary detention, restrictions on freedom of association, sanctions against magistrates, and issues affecting judicial independence.

With regard to engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, the available record indicates that eight communications were addressed to Niger during the reporting period, of which five received replies, corresponding to a response rate of approximately 62.5 per cent. This reflects a relatively structured but not fully comprehensive approach to engagement. At the same time, Niger has issued a standing invitation to Special Procedures and has engaged with certain visit requests, indicating a degree of openness to cooperation. However, the absence of responses to several communications suggests that coordination is not yet fully systematic or consistent. While elements of coordination consistent with the functions of a National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up (NMIRF) appear to operate in practice, it has not been possible to verify the formal establishment or designation of a comprehensive NMIRF, as encouraged by Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33.

Niger previously had a National Human Rights Institution, the Commission Nationale des Droits Humains (CNDH), accredited with “A status” by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. However, following the events of 26 July 2023, Ordinances No. 2023-01 and No. 2023-02 abolished constitutional bodies, including the CNDH, and provided for its replacement by a national observatory for human rights, which remains non-operational. These developments represent a profound disruption of institutional safeguards and have led to the suspension of the institution’s accreditation, raising serious concerns regarding independence, effectiveness, and the availability of independent oversight, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

As a result, there is currently no demonstrable evidence of the existence of a National Human Rights Institution in Niger operating in accordance with the Paris Principles. The absence of an independent institutional actor also results in a lack of visible, independent engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including the absence of independent analyses, submissions, or structured follow-up to recommendations and communications. This limits transparency and reduces the availability of impartial assessment of the State’s implementation of its international human rights obligations.

Taken together, these elements point to a complex situation in which political transition, security challenges, and structural inequalities intersect with weakened institutional safeguards. While governmental coordination in engaging with international human rights mechanisms appears to function in part, it remains incomplete, and independent oversight mechanisms remain absent or non-operational, affecting the balance between implementation and accountability.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure a clear, inclusive, and time-bound process for the restoration of constitutional order, including the adoption of a new constitution fully consistent with international human rights obligations and the re-establishment of democratic institutions.

·       Guarantee freedom of expression and media independence, including by ensuring that journalists and media actors can operate without undue restrictions, intimidation, or fear of reprisals.

·       Ensure that civil society organisations and political actors are able to operate freely and participate meaningfully in public life.

·       Ensure that all security measures are implemented in full compliance with international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including accountability for violations committed by both State and non-State actors.

·       Strengthen access to justice and ensure that detention conditions and judicial processes comply with international standards, including fair trial guarantees and protection against arbitrary detention.

·       Take effective measures to eliminate slavery-like practices and descent-based discrimination, including through strengthened enforcement, investigation, prosecution, and victim protection.

·       Adopt comprehensive legislation and measures to prevent and address gender-based violence, including criminalisation of all forms of violence, and ensure access to protection, support services, and remedies for victims.

·       Strengthen child protection mechanisms, particularly in conflict settings, including by preventing recruitment and protecting schools and hospitals.

·       Enhance access to food, healthcare, education, and basic services, particularly in conflict-affected and vulnerable regions.

·       Develop and implement a comprehensive transitional justice and reparations framework to address serious human rights violations and ensure access to effective remedies for victims.

·       Take measures to re-establish an independent and effective National Human Rights Institution in compliance with the Paris Principles, with adequate resources and guarantees of independence.

·       Ensure systematic, coordinated, and comprehensive engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures, and strengthen institutional coordination.

·       Consider establishing or clearly designating a comprehensive NMIRF, in line with Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33, to ensure coordinated, systematic, and effective implementation of international human rights obligations.

For MOZAMBIQUE (Date of consideration: Tuesday 5 May 2026 – 09:00 – 12:30)

The situation in Mozambique can be understood by examining the ongoing conflict and insecurity in Cabo Delgado and situating it within a broader pattern affecting the protection of fundamental rights, including access to justice, civic space, and the rights of affected communities.

The armed conflict in the north, ongoing since 2017, continues to generate large-scale displacement and humanitarian needs. Hundreds of thousands of persons remain internally displaced, while a significantly larger population remains in need of humanitarian assistance. Over 600,000 persons remain displaced due to conflict, with additional displacement caused by climate-related disasters, including cyclones and flooding. These dynamics exacerbate vulnerabilities and place additional strain on already limited state capacity, particularly affecting access to housing, food, water, healthcare, and education, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/MOZ/2).

Reports indicate that serious human rights violations have been committed by multiple actors, including non-State armed groups, Mozambican security forces, and foreign or private military actors. These include attacks on civilians, abductions, forced recruitment and use of children, sexual violence, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and excessive use of force. Grave violations against children have increased significantly, including recruitment, abduction, and sexual exploitation. At the same time, accountability mechanisms remain limited, with very few prosecutions and limited transparency regarding investigations, raising concerns regarding persistent impunity, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

These concerns are further reinforced by multiple United Nations Special Procedures communications, including JAL MOZ 1/2021 (19 March 2021) concerning displacement and violations in Cabo Delgado, JUA MOZ 2/2024 (14 November 2024) addressing post-election violence, killings of protesters, arbitrary arrests, and repression following the 9 October 2024 elections, and JAL MOZ 2/2025 (18 February 2025) concerning the enforced disappearance of journalist Mr Arlindo Chissale.

The broader environment for civic space remains a concern. Reports indicate a pattern of threats, intimidation, and violence against journalists, civil society actors, and human rights defenders. These concerns are compounded by the criminalisation of defamation and restrictions affecting access to information, as well as documented cases of post-election repression, including deaths, injuries, and mass arrests of protesters. These developments raise concerns regarding freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and political participation, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

The humanitarian situation is closely linked to issues of land rights and resource governance. In resource-rich areas, particularly in Cabo Delgado, communities have reportedly been displaced or deprived of access to land without adequate consultation or compensation, particularly in the context of extractive industry projects. The ongoing revision of the Land Law introduces provisions that may allow expropriation without consultation or compensation based on State interest, raising concerns regarding compliance with international human rights standards, including the protection of livelihoods, housing, and participation rights. Environmental degradation and weak regulatory enforcement in extractive areas further affect affected communities, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

Mozambique also faces structural challenges in addressing gender-based violence, which remains widespread, including domestic violence, sexual violence, and exploitation, particularly in conflict-affected areas. Survivors continue to face barriers in accessing justice and support services. Harmful practices and structural gender inequalities further affect the protection of women’s rights. At the same time, high levels of child marriage and child labour persist, while trafficking in persons remains insufficiently addressed due to weak enforcement and limited institutional capacity, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

Challenges persist in the administration of justice, including damaged judicial infrastructure in conflict-affected regions, delays in proceedings, and limited access to legal remedies. Detention conditions remain critical, including severe overcrowding and inadequate conditions. Corruption and weak accountability frameworks further undermine access to justice and the effective enforcement of rights.

Mozambique has established a National Human Rights Commission, accredited with “B status” by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, indicating partial compliance with the Paris Principles. While the Commission has a formal mandate, persistent challenges relating to independence, resources, and operational capacity limit its effectiveness in practice. These constraints are particularly evident in conflict-affected areas, where its ability to monitor violations, support victims, and contribute to accountability processes remains limited. The need to strengthen its mandate and effectiveness has also been identified by United Nations mechanisms, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

With regard to engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, the available record indicates that 11 Special Procedures communications were addressed to Mozambique during the reporting period, of which only one received a reply. This extremely low response rate demonstrates a pattern of limited and inconsistent engagement, indicating that existing coordination structures are not functioning effectively in practice. While Mozambique has established an Interministerial Commission on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, formally designated as a National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up, available information indicates that it lacks internal regulations, a clear workplan, and operational effectiveness. As a result, it does not function as a fully operational, systematic mechanism capable of ensuring coordinated, timely, and comprehensive engagement with international human rights obligations, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

At the same time, there is no visible evidence of independent and systematic engagement by the National Human Rights Commission with communications and recommendations issued by United Nations human rights mechanisms. In particular, no publicly available independent analyses, follow-up reports, or submissions appear to address concerns raised by Special Procedures. This absence of independent monitoring and follow-up raises questions regarding the effective exercise of the NHRI’s mandate under the Paris Principles.

Mozambique also faces broader structural challenges in its engagement with international human rights obligations. Several core international human rights treaties remain unratified, and reporting obligations to treaty bodies are significantly delayed, limiting the effectiveness of international oversight and accountability mechanisms, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

Taken together, these elements point to structural challenges in balancing security responses, economic development, and the protection of fundamental rights. These challenges are particularly acute in conflict-affected regions, where vulnerabilities are compounded by displacement, climate-related pressures, weak institutional capacity, and insufficient accountability mechanisms.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure that all counter-terrorism and security operations are conducted in full compliance with international human rights law and international humanitarian law, with particular attention to the protection of civilians.

·       Strengthen independent, impartial, and effective accountability mechanisms for alleged violations by all actors, ensuring prompt investigations, prosecution of perpetrators, and access to remedies for victims.

·       Ensure the protection of internally displaced persons, including access to humanitarian assistance, safe, voluntary, and dignified return or resettlement, and effective protection of land and property rights.

·       Ensure that development and extractive industry projects are conducted in full compliance with international human rights standards, including meaningful consultation, free, prior and informed consent, and protection against forced displacement.

·       Strengthen legal and regulatory frameworks governing land and natural resources, ensuring protection against expropriation without consultation or compensation and guaranteeing access to justice for affected communities.

·       Ensure the protection of journalists, civil society organisations, and human rights defenders, and safeguard an open, safe, and enabling civic space, including by reviewing legislation such as criminal defamation provisions.

·       Strengthen measures to prevent and address gender-based violence, child marriage, trafficking, and exploitation, including through improved access to justice and comprehensive support services.

·       Strengthen child protection systems, particularly in conflict-affected areas, including prevention of recruitment and protection from exploitation and abuse.

·       Strengthen the independence, mandate, and operational capacity of the National Human Rights Commission, including through adequate resourcing and alignment with the Paris Principles.

·       Ensure systematic, coordinated, and substantive engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures, through the timely submission of comprehensive responses and effective follow-up.

·       Strengthen and operationalise the National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up by adopting internal regulations, establishing a clear mandate, and ensuring systematic tracking and implementation of recommendations.

·       Enhance cooperation with international human rights mechanisms, including by addressing treaty ratification gaps and fulfilling reporting obligations to treaty bodies.

·       Adopt and implement a national action plan on business and human rights, ensuring accountability for private sector actors and effective remedies for affected communities.

For ESTONIA (Date of consideration: Tuesday 5 May 2026 - 14:30 - 18:00)

The Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, with approximately 150,000 to 170,000 adherents, representing around 11 to 13 per cent of the total population, remains a central religious and cultural institution for a substantial part of the Russian-speaking community. Measures affecting its autonomy, governance, and leadership, including those concerning His Eminence Metropolitan Evgenii (Valerii Reshetnikov), Primate of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, therefore have direct implications for the exercise of freedom of religion and belief and the preservation of cultural identity.

A key concern is the continued disruption of the Church’s leadership following the expulsion of Metropolitan Evgenii in 2024. The restoration of the Church’s effective functioning, including enabling the return of its head, is closely linked to compliance with international standards on freedom of religion and the protection of minority rights. The Churches and Congregations (Amendment) Act, adopted by the Riigikogu in 2025, seeks to prohibit doctrinal, administrative, financial, and “spiritual” ties between Estonian religious communities and foreign religious authorities deemed to pose a national security risk. President Alar Karis twice refused to promulgate the legislation, citing concerns regarding its compatibility with constitutional protections for freedom of religion and association, and subsequently referred it to the Supreme Court for constitutional review. This process remains ongoing and raises important questions regarding the proportionality of restrictions and their compatibility with fundamental rights.

These developments take place within a broader securitisation framework, in which national security considerations are increasingly invoked in areas traditionally protected by fundamental rights. In particular, Penal Code § 235, which criminalises “support” to foreign entities in broadly defined and ambiguous terms, has been applied in a manner extending beyond genuine security threats. The provision enables the prosecution of conduct that does not involve violence, including political expression, civic engagement, and forms of contact or cooperation that may be interpreted as disloyalty. This has contributed to the narrowing of space for peaceful political opposition and minority advocacy. The application of this framework is illustrated in cases such as those of Mr Aivo Peterson, leader of the Koos political party, and Mr Sergei Seredenko, a human rights defender and legal scholar. Messrs. Peterson and Seredenko have been convicted and sentenced to 14 years and five and a half years’ imprisonment respectively. Both cases raise concerns regarding the application of national security provisions to non-violent activities, as well as issues related to fair trial guarantees, including access to evidence and the use of closed proceedings.

These developments have been the subject of scrutiny by United Nations Special Procedures. In particular, JAL EST 2/2025 of 6 August 2025 addressed a broader pattern of legislative, judicial, and administrative measures affecting the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, its leadership, and its adherents, raising serious concerns regarding freedom of religion and belief, including the protection of the forum internum, which is absolute under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As clarified in Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 22, this encompasses the autonomy of religious communities in matters of doctrine, governance, and internal organisation, free from coercion or interference. In this context, national security considerations cannot justify interference in ecclesiastical matters. These concerns were further echoed by United Nations experts, who, on 12 December 2025, expressed alarm regarding escalating legislative and administrative measures affecting the Church and its adherents. These concerns are also reflected in the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/EST/2).

The matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Estonia. On 3 February 2026, the Court held a public hearing, and on 4 February 2026, the case was transferred to the Supreme Court en banc due to fundamental disagreements of principle within the original panel. No further oral hearing was scheduled. The en banc set deliberations for 24 March and 5 May 2026, with a final judgment to be delivered no later than June 2026. The Court is expected to assess the compatibility of the legislation with the Constitution; however, it remains unclear to what extent international human rights standards will be substantively examined. In this context, it is notable that a legal amicus curiae submission prepared by Justice pour Tous Internationale, addressing relevant international human rights standards, was declined inclusion in the official case file, raising concerns regarding the extent to which such standards are being fully considered.

These developments take place within a broader securitisation framework, in which national security considerations are increasingly invoked in areas traditionally protected by fundamental rights. In this context, the role of the Estonian Internal Security Service (Kaitsepolitseiamet, KAPO) is of particular relevance. As the authority responsible for counterintelligence and identifying threats related to foreign influence, KAPO plays a central role in shaping risk assessments that may inform legislative, administrative, and criminal measures. While this mandate is legitimate, its expanding influence underscores the need to ensure that resulting measures remain strictly necessary, proportionate, and subject to effective judicial and institutional oversight.

In particular, Penal Code § 235, which criminalises “support” to foreign entities in broadly defined terms, has been applied beyond clearly identifiable security threats. The provision enables the prosecution of non-violent conduct, including political expression and civic engagement. This has contributed to a narrowing of space for peaceful political opposition and minority advocacy. This framework is illustrated in cases such as those of Mr Aivo Peterson and Mr Sergei Seredenko. The concerns surrounding Mr Peterson’s detention and prosecution were raised in JAL EST 1/2025 of 19 February 2025, highlighting issues relating to the application of national security provisions to non-violent activities and fair trial guarantees.

As reflected in the OHCHR stakeholders’ summary (A/HRC/WG.6/52/EST/3, paragraphs 27 and 43), this pattern links the use of security legislation with restrictions affecting religious institutions and the broader marginalisation of the Russian-speaking minority. In addition, concerns have been raised regarding language requirements in employment and public life, which may disproportionately affect minority groups and contribute to structural inequalities. These elements reinforce concerns regarding equality, non-discrimination, and effective participation in public and economic life.

At the same time, broader concerns relating to civic space remain relevant. Reports indicate that restrictions affecting public assemblies, protest activities, and civil society engagement may contribute to a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression and participation in public life, particularly when combined with security-related frameworks. In this regard, international recommendations, including those reflected in the OHCHR compilation, have called for the decriminalisation of defamation, further underscoring the need to align the legal framework with international standards.

In addition, other cross-cutting human rights challenges persist. Gender-based violence remains a significant concern, with gaps in protection mechanisms, access to justice, and support services. Structural inequalities also affect persons with disabilities, including in access to inclusive education, employment, healthcare, and social services, while Roma communities continue to face discrimination and social exclusion. Concerns have also been raised regarding involuntary treatment, institutionalisation, and barriers to access to justice for persons with disabilities.

Issues relating to education and linguistic rights have also been raised at the international level. JAL EST 1/2023 of 19 July 2023 addressed legislative amendments mandating the transition to Estonian-language education and their impact on minority rights, cultural rights, and the right to education. These developments raise questions regarding equality, non-discrimination, and the protection of minority identity.

With regard to interaction with United Nations human rights mechanisms, three Special Procedures communications were addressed to Estonia between 2023 and 2025, all of which received substantive consolidated governmental replies, corresponding to a response rate of 100 per cent. This indicates that coordinated processes for responding to international communications are functioning in practice and suggests the existence of elements consistent with a National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up. However, it has not been possible to verify that Estonia has formally established or clearly designated a comprehensive mechanism of this nature, as encouraged by Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33. Coordination appears to remain decentralised, primarily involving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and line ministries, and the absence of a formalised mechanism with a standing mandate for systematic tracking and follow-up may affect transparency, institutionalisation, and long-term coherence. This assessment is further supported by the OHCHR compilation, which reflects recommendations by treaty bodies to establish a standing governmental structure to coordinate reporting and ensure systematic follow-up to international human rights obligations.

Estonia benefits from an established National Human Rights Institution, the Chancellor of Justice, accredited with “A status” by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, indicating full compliance with the Paris Principles and endowed with a broad constitutional mandate, including oversight of fundamental rights, review of the legality of public authorities, and the capacity to address systemic issues within the domestic legal order. In principle, such accreditation entails not only formal independence and a comprehensive mandate, but also the expectation of active, independent, and substantive engagement with international human rights mechanisms, including the integration of United Nations standards into national legal and policy analysis.

At the same time, limited publicly available evidence of systematic and independent follow-up to communications issued by United Nations Special Procedures, as well as the absence of their substantive integration into legal reasoning and institutional outputs, raises serious questions regarding the effectiveness, visibility, and depth of the institution’s interaction with international human rights protection mechanisms. This concern is particularly significant in light of the central role that National Human Rights Institutions are expected to play under the Paris Principles in bridging international norms and domestic implementation, including through monitoring, reporting, and advisory functions grounded in international law.

This gap is further illustrated by the Chancellor’s submission to the Supreme Court in the context of the constitutional review of the Churches and Congregations (Amendment) Act. The submission does not contain a substantive assessment of applicable international human rights standards, including those arising under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and elaborated in Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 22. In particular, there is no engagement with the absolute nature of the forum internum, nor with the well-established prohibition of State interference in matters of religious doctrine, governance, and internal organisation. The absence of such analysis is notable given the direct relevance of these standards to the issues under consideration before the Court.

Furthermore, the submission does not reflect or engage with publicly available concerns raised by United Nations Special Procedures, including JAL EST 2/2025 of 6 August 2025 and the press release issued on 12 December 2025, which address precisely the legislative and administrative measures at issue. Instead, the reasoning remains primarily framed within domestic constitutional law and European human rights jurisprudence, without incorporating or assessing the relevant United Nations normative framework. This absence of independent, internationally grounded legal analysis suggests a limitation in the extent to which the National Human Rights Institution is operationalising its mandate in accordance with the Paris Principles.

This pattern is also evident in the submission of the Chancellor of Justice to the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review. While the report addresses a range of domestic human rights issues, including discrimination, surveillance, education, healthcare, disability rights, and gender-based violence, it does not reference or analyse communications issued by United Nations Special Procedures, despite their direct relevance to several of the issues discussed. The omission of such material indicates a broader pattern of limited integration of United Nations human rights mechanisms into national reporting and analysis, which may affect the completeness, balance, and international grounding of the assessment presented.

Within this broader context, concerns relating to linguistic rights and non-discrimination also arise. The Russian-speaking population, representing approximately one quarter of Estonia’s population, faces structural challenges, including the transition to Estonian-language education and the disenfranchisement of approximately 80,000 residents in local elections. These measures raise issues under Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and may affect effective participation in public, political, and cultural life.

Additional concerns arise in relation to statelessness and migration. International bodies have recommended the establishment of a statelessness determination procedure, facilitation of naturalisation, and full respect for the principle of non-refoulement. The persistence of a significant population with undetermined citizenship continues to affect equal participation in public and political life.

At the same time, broader issues relating to international obligations remain relevant. Concerns have been expressed regarding potential withdrawal from international humanitarian law instruments, while several core human rights treaties remain unratified, raising questions regarding the consistency of engagement with international standards.

Finally, despite a standing invitation to Special Procedures, no country visits have taken place during the reporting period, suggesting a gap between formal openness and substantive engagement.

Taken together, these elements indicate a broader pattern in which national security frameworks intersect with minority rights, equality concerns, institutional oversight, and international accountability, raising questions regarding proportionality, non-discrimination, and the effective protection of fundamental freedoms.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure that national security legislation, including Penal Code § 235, is applied in full conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and cannot be used to restrict peaceful expression, minority advocacy, or religious activity beyond what is strictly necessary and proportionate.

·       Ensure full protection of freedom of religion and belief by revising the Churches and Congregations (Amendment) Act in line with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 22, guaranteeing in particular the absolute protection of the forum internum and the autonomy of religious communities in matters of doctrine, governance, and internal organisation, free from State interference, including by enabling the return of Metropolitan Evgenii (Valerii Reshetnikov).

·       Ensure that the Supreme Court’s constitutional review of the Churches and Congregations (Amendment) Act is conducted in full conformity with international human rights law, including relevant United Nations standards, and that international legal considerations are duly taken into account in assessing the compatibility of the legislation.

·       Ensure full compliance with fair trial guarantees in national security-related cases, including transparency of proceedings, full access to evidence, and effective and independent judicial oversight.

·       Strengthen the protection of civic space, including by reviewing legislation such as criminal defamation provisions and ensuring that journalists, civil society actors, and human rights defenders can operate freely and without fear of intimidation or reprisals.

·       Ensure equality and non-discrimination for all groups, including persons with disabilities, Roma communities, and linguistic minorities, including by addressing structural barriers linked to language requirements in employment, education, and access to public services.

·       Ensure the protection of linguistic rights, including access to education in minority languages and meaningful consultation with minority communities on education reforms, in line with Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

·       Address statelessness and its implications for political participation by facilitating access to nationality and restoring equal participation rights for long-term residents and persons with undetermined citizenship, in line with Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

·       Ensure that the National Human Rights Institution is enabled to engage systematically, independently, and proactively with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures mandate holders, particularly in situations involving non-implementation of its recommendations, including through the establishment of institutional channels for real-time engagement, independent submissions, and participation in follow-up and communications procedures.

·       Ensure systematic, transparent, and comprehensive follow-up to communications and recommendations issued by United Nations human rights mechanisms, building on existing coordination practices while strengthening institutional accountability.

·       Consider establishing or clearly designating a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up, in line with Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33, with a formal mandate for coordinated, systematic, and effective implementation of recommendations across all international human rights mechanisms.

·       Strengthen the independence, visibility, and operational effectiveness of the National Human Rights Institution in line with the Paris Principles, including its role in independently assessing, monitoring, and reporting on the State’s compliance with international human rights obligations.

For PARAGUAY (Date of consideration: Wednesday 6 May 2026 – 09:00 – 12:30)

The situation in Paraguay can be understood by examining the intersection of land rights, Indigenous peoples’ rights, and access to justice, and situating these within broader structural challenges affecting the effective enforcement of legal protections and the realisation of fundamental rights.

Indigenous communities continue to face significant obstacles in securing legal recognition of their ancestral lands, despite existing constitutional protections and binding international obligations. In several cases, including those decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, delays in the implementation of land restitution orders persist, raising concerns regarding the effectiveness of judicial enforcement and the protection of Indigenous rights in practice. Land conflicts remain a central issue, particularly in rural areas, where Indigenous communities and small-scale farmers face risks of forced eviction, displacement, and loss of access to traditional livelihoods. These dynamics are closely linked to broader patterns of land concentration, agribusiness expansion, and resource exploitation, which continue to affect access to housing, food security, and economic opportunities.

These concerns are reflected in the OHCHR stakeholders’ summary (A/HRC/WG.6/52/PRY/3) and further corroborated by the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/PRY/2), which highlights persistent discrimination against Indigenous peoples, widespread poverty affecting 66.2 per cent of Indigenous populations, and structural barriers in access to healthcare, education, water, and basic services. The compilation further indicates increasing instances of forced evictions and inadequate protection of Indigenous lands, reinforcing concerns regarding the gap between legal protections and their implementation.

Additional concerns relate to the situation of human rights defenders, particularly those working on land, environmental, and Indigenous rights issues. Reports indicate instances of threats, harassment, and criminalisation, while the majority of killings of journalists remain unresolved, pointing to persistent impunity. Despite a binding judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights requiring the establishment of a protection mechanism for journalists and defenders, the relevant legislative framework has not advanced since 2021, raising concerns regarding compliance with international obligations and the protection of civic space.

Beyond these structural issues, Paraguay faces significant and persistent challenges in addressing gender-based violence and ensuring the protection of women’s rights. High levels of femicide, domestic violence, and sexual violence have been reported, alongside gaps in the effective implementation of existing legal frameworks. Barriers to access to justice, under-reporting, and limited availability of support services continue to affect victims. Broader concerns also arise in relation to sexual and reproductive rights, including restrictive legal frameworks, insufficient budget allocation, and limitations on access to information and services, particularly affecting adolescents, Indigenous women, and rural populations, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

Concerns also arise regarding child protection, including cases of abuse, exploitation, and high rates of adolescent pregnancy. The persistence of practices such as criadazgo (child domestic servitude) and high levels of sexual violence against children further illustrate structural protection gaps, compounded by weaknesses in prevention mechanisms, access to education and services, and social protection systems.

Serious challenges persist in detention conditions, including severe prison overcrowding, inadequate infrastructure, limited access to healthcare, and prolonged pre-trial detention. According to the OHCHR compilation, approximately 70 per cent of detainees are held in pre-trial detention, with overcrowding reaching approximately 435 per cent nationally and exceeding 1,100 per cent in some facilities. These conditions raise serious concerns regarding compliance with international standards and the prohibition of ill-treatment.

Additional concerns relate to discrimination and violence affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons, including the absence of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, lack of legal recognition of gender identity, and reported instances of violence and impunity. More broadly, Paraguay has not yet adopted a comprehensive legal framework addressing all forms of discrimination, despite repeated recommendations from international human rights mechanisms, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

Environmental and business-related human rights challenges also remain significant. Indigenous and rural communities are exposed to hazardous substances, including pesticides, and environmental laws are not consistently enforced. These factors have direct implications for health, livelihoods, and access to safe water, reinforcing the need to strengthen regulatory frameworks and corporate accountability.

Challenges persist in access to justice more broadly, including delays in judicial proceedings, limited enforcement of court decisions, and structural barriers affecting vulnerable groups. The judicial system has been described as slow and inefficient, with many human rights violations not effectively investigated, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation. These factors contribute to a persistent gap between formal legal protections and their implementation in practice.

These concerns have also been reflected in multiple United Nations Special Procedures communications. In particular, OL PRY 1/2021 (27 October 2021) raised concerns regarding access to water and sanitation. JAL PRY 1/2022 (23 March 2022) addressed the displacement of Indigenous Avá Guaraní communities following eviction operations affecting access to housing and livelihoods. JOL PRY 1/2024 (19 July 2024) raised concerns regarding draft legislation potentially restricting freedom of association and civic space. JAL PRY 2/2024 (1 October 2024) addressed allegations of violence against the Guaraní Paĩ Tavyterã Indigenous community. More recently, JOL PRY 1/2025 (6 February 2025) raised concerns regarding delays in the ratification of the Escazú Agreement, with implications for environmental rights and the protection of human rights defenders.

With regard to engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, the pattern of responses to Special Procedures communications indicates a largely consistent approach. Between 2021 and 2025, five communications were addressed to Paraguay, of which four received replies while one shows no recorded response, corresponding to a response rate of approximately 80 per cent. This pattern suggests that responses are generally prepared and submitted in a coordinated manner within the executive, consistent with the functioning of a National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up (NMIRF). Paraguay has established such a mechanism through the Sistema de Monitoreo de Recomendaciones (SIMORE Plus), which serves as a coordinated platform for tracking recommendations from international human rights mechanisms. While this represents a positive institutional framework and recognised good practice, the persistence of long-standing structural issues indicates that effective implementation and follow-up remain uneven in practice.

Paraguay has established a National Human Rights Institution, the Defensoría del Pueblo, which is accredited with “A status” by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, indicating compliance with the Paris Principles. The institution has actively engaged with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including through a substantive submission to the present Universal Periodic Review cycle. At the same time, the OHCHR compilation indicates that the institution continues to face resource constraints and structural limitations, and its recommendations are not consistently implemented, which affects its overall impact.

Taken together, these elements point to structural challenges not only in ensuring the effective protection of Indigenous rights and equitable access to land, but also in addressing discrimination, strengthening access to justice, improving detention conditions, protecting civic space, and ensuring that existing legal and institutional frameworks translate into tangible improvements in the protection of rights.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure the effective and timely implementation of judicial decisions, including those of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, particularly in cases relating to Indigenous land rights, and strengthen enforcement mechanisms to guarantee compliance.

·       Strengthen legal and administrative frameworks for land restitution, including the recognition, demarcation, and protection of Indigenous ancestral lands, and prevent forced evictions in full compliance with international human rights standards, including free, prior and informed consent.

·       Adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation covering all prohibited grounds, in line with international human rights obligations, and ensure effective implementation.

·       Ensure the protection of human rights defenders and journalists, including through the prompt adoption and implementation of a protection mechanism in line with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights judgment, and ensure accountability for attacks and killings.

·       Strengthen measures to prevent and address gender-based violence, including by ensuring effective implementation of existing legislation, improving access to justice, and providing comprehensive support services for victims.

·       Enhance the protection of women’s rights, including by addressing barriers to sexual and reproductive health services, ensuring adequate resource allocation, and reviewing restrictive legal frameworks in line with international standards.

·       Strengthen child protection systems, including by addressing practices such as criadazgo, preventing sexual exploitation and abuse, and ensuring access to education, healthcare, and social protection.

·       Improve detention conditions, including by addressing overcrowding, reducing prolonged pre-trial detention, ensuring access to healthcare, and aligning conditions with international human rights standards.

·       Strengthen environmental protection and business and human rights frameworks, including by ensuring regulation of hazardous substances, enforcing environmental laws, and protecting affected communities.

·       Strengthen access to justice by addressing delays in judicial proceedings, ensuring enforcement of court decisions, and removing structural barriers to effective remedies.

·       Enhance access to healthcare, education, water, and social services, particularly for Indigenous populations and other vulnerable groups.

·       Strengthen the effectiveness, independence, and follow-up capacity of the National Human Rights Institution, including by ensuring adequate resources and systematic implementation of its recommendations.

·       Ensure that the National Human Rights Institution is enabled to engage systematically and independently with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures mandate holders, particularly in situations involving non-implementation of its recommendations, and facilitate institutional channels for real-time engagement, expert consultation, and structured follow-up.

·       Ensure the effective implementation of recommendations tracked through the NMIRF, including through strengthened inter-institutional coordination, adequate resource allocation, and accountability mechanisms.

·       Continue strengthening the NMIRF to ensure comprehensive, systematic, and outcome-oriented implementation of recommendations from treaty bodies, the Universal Periodic Review, and Special Procedures.

·       Consider ratifying the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in line with previous commitments, to strengthen access to international remedies for violations of economic, social, and cultural rights.

For BELGIUM (Date of consideration: Wednesday 6 May 2026 - 14:30 - 18:00)

Recent developments in Belgium raise concerns regarding the regulation of civic space, particularly in relation to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and the application of criminal law to protest activities.

In particular, Belgium’s new Criminal Code, entering into force in April 2026, introduces the offence of “malicious interference with the authority of the State.” As reflected in the OHCHR stakeholders’ summary (A/HRC/WG.6/52/BEL/3), concerns have been raised regarding the lack of clarity and potentially broad scope of this provision, which may give rise to undue restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, including the risk of criminalising legitimate forms of protest and civil disobedience. These concerns are further reinforced by recommendations reflected in the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/BEL/2), which emphasise the need to ensure that restrictions on expression comply with the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality, including calls to review criminal defamation frameworks.

Recent reporting further indicates that demonstrations, including those related to politically sensitive international issues such as the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, have at times been subject to restrictive measures. These have included the use of dispersal tactics by law enforcement, such as tear gas, water cannon, and other crowd-control measures, as well as arrests of participants and subsequent legal proceedings against activists. While large-scale demonstrations continue to take place, these incidents raise concerns regarding the necessity and proportionality of policing practices, as well as the effectiveness of independent oversight and accountability mechanisms in addressing allegations of excessive use of force and discriminatory practices. In this regard, the OHCHR compilation highlights concerns relating to racial profiling, discrimination in policing, and the need to ensure that the use of force complies with international standards, including legality, necessity, proportionality, accountability, and non-discrimination.

Additional concerns relate to the use of judicial proceedings in response to protest-related activities, including cases involving occupations of private premises. While such actions may fall within the scope of domestic law, their application in certain contexts may have a deterrent effect on civic engagement. More broadly, structural challenges affecting the justice system, including the extensive use of pretrial detention, delays in proceedings, and persistent prison overcrowding, raise concerns regarding compliance with fair trial guarantees and humane conditions of detention. The OHCHR compilation further highlights the need to address structural issues in detention, including the overrepresentation of certain groups, and to promote alternatives to detention in line with international standards.

Broader concerns have also been raised regarding the operating environment for civil society and human rights defenders, including protection against abusive or disproportionate legal proceedings. In this regard, on 5 January 2023, JAL BEL 2/2022 raised concerns regarding the use of defamation proceedings by a Belgian company against environmental activists, highlighting risks of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPPs) and their potential chilling effect on freedom of expression.

Concerns relating to migration and asylum remain significant. On 30 March 2023, JAL BEL 1/2023 documented the deterioration of the asylum reception system, including situations in which asylum seekers, including families and children, were left without shelter and forced to live in precarious conditions. These developments, combined with repeated judicial findings against the State, point to structural gaps in implementation and coordination. The OHCHR compilation further indicates that undocumented migrants face heightened vulnerability, including barriers to access to housing, services, and protection, as well as risks of discriminatory treatment and excessive use of force.

At the international level, several communications highlight the extraterritorial human rights implications of Belgian policies and corporate activities. On 26 October 2023, JAL BEL 2/2023 raised concerns regarding human rights violations linked to a Peruvian palm oil company whose products are purchased by a Belgian enterprise, underscoring the importance of corporate human rights due diligence. On 27 October 2023, JUA BEL 3/2023 addressed the situation of two Belgian nationals detained in Al-Roj camp in Syria and their exclusion from repatriation policies. More recently, on 22 July 2025, JAL BEL 1/2025 raised concerns regarding trafficking and predatory recruitment of foreign nationals into armed conflict, engaging Belgium’s obligations in relation to trafficking and transnational accountability. On 26 November 2025, AL BEL 2/2025 further addressed reductions in official development assistance and their potential impact on human rights and climate action. In this broader context, the OHCHR compilation also highlights the need to integrate human rights considerations into climate and environmental policies, including through the development of a comprehensive and gender-responsive framework.

Recent developments relating to the immobilisation of Russian sovereign assets, notably those of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, also raise broader questions regarding legal certainty and the protection of property rights within the framework of sanctions implementation. While these measures are based on European Union decisions, a substantial portion of such assets is held in Belgium through the financial institution Euroclear. Ongoing discussions concerning the use of revenues or further measures highlight the importance of ensuring that all actions remain fully consistent with international law, including due process guarantees and legal predictability.

Belgium presents a distinctive institutional configuration in which two separate National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) — the Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights and Unia, the Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight against Racism and Discrimination — are each accredited with “B status” by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), indicating partial compliance with the Paris Principles. This reflects the broader distribution of human rights mandates within Belgium’s federal structure. The OHCHR compilation further indicates the need to strengthen the mandate, resources, and complaints-handling capacity of the Federal Institute, as well as to enhance coherence across the institutional framework.

At the same time, the institutional landscape remains complex and fragmented across federal, regional, and community levels. The current NHRI framework does not yet provide comprehensive coverage across all competences, and institutional fragmentation may affect the coherence, visibility, and effectiveness of monitoring and follow-up, particularly in areas involving cross-cutting issues such as civic space, policing, access to justice, and the protection of vulnerable groups.

The record of communications addressed to Belgium between 2021 and 2025 indicates that all such communications have received substantive replies from the Government, suggesting that inter-institutional coordination mechanisms are operational in practice for the preparation and submission of consolidated responses. This indicates the presence of functional elements consistent with a National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up (NMIRF). However, it has not been possible to verify the formal establishment or clear designation of a comprehensive, standing NMIRF with a defined mandate for systematic tracking, implementation, and follow-up across all United Nations human rights mechanisms, as encouraged by Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33.

At the same time, limited publicly available evidence of independent engagement by either of the two NHRIs in relation to these communications raises questions regarding the effective exercise of their mandates in practice. In particular, there is no indication of separate public assessments, independent replies, or structured follow-up reports presenting their own findings in response to concerns raised by Special Procedures. This may affect the visibility, independence, and practical impact of NHRI engagement, particularly in areas involving sensitive issues such as civic space, migration, corporate accountability, and international obligations.

Additional structural considerations arise from gaps in international commitments. As reflected in the OHCHR compilation, Belgium has not ratified certain key international instruments, including the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and has not yet ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, which is relevant to strengthening independent oversight of detention conditions.

Taken together, these elements raise concerns regarding the application of criminal law, policing practices, judicial measures, migration policies, corporate accountability, sanctions-related frameworks, and institutional coordination in a manner that may affect the full enjoyment of fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, access to justice, and civic participation.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure that criminal law provisions, including those introduced in the new Criminal Code, are clearly defined, precise, and foreseeable, and are applied in full conformity with the ICCPR, including by reviewing provisions related to defamation and protest-related offences.

·       Ensure that law enforcement responses to demonstrations are strictly necessary and proportionate, and subject to effective, independent oversight and accountability mechanisms, in line with international standards on the use of force.

·        Strengthen measures to prevent and address racial discrimination, including racial profiling in policing, and adopt comprehensive anti-racism strategies.

·       Strengthen safeguards against abusive litigation, including SLAPPs, to protect human rights defenders and civil society actors.

·       Ensure that migration and asylum policies, including reception conditions, are implemented in full compliance with international human rights obligations and judicial decisions, including access to housing and basic services.

·       Strengthen the functioning of the justice system, including by addressing excessive pretrial detention, delays, and detention conditions, and promoting alternatives to detention.

·       Ensure that business activities and supply chains under Belgian jurisdiction or control comply with international human rights standards, including through effective due diligence frameworks.

·       Ensure that sanctions-related measures are implemented in full compliance with international law, including due process and the protection of property rights.

·       Strengthen the coherence and effectiveness of the NHRI framework, including by enhancing mandates, resources, and complaints-handling capacity, with a view to achieving full compliance with the Paris Principles.

·       Ensure systematic and transparent follow-up to recommendations and communications issued by United Nations human rights mechanisms, including through strengthened coordination within the executive and enhanced independent engagement by the NHRIs.

·       Consider establishing or clearly designating a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up (NMIRF), adapted to Belgium’s federal structure, to ensure coordinated and effective implementation of international human rights obligations.

·       Consider ratifying outstanding international human rights instruments, including the ICRMW and OPCAT, to strengthen protection frameworks, particularly in relation to migration and detention.

·       Integrate human rights considerations into climate and environmental policies, including through the development of a comprehensive and gender-responsive strategy.

For DENMARK (Date of consideration: Thursday 7 May 2026 – 09:00 – 12:30)

The situation in Denmark can be understood by examining the interaction between the protection of fundamental freedoms, the rights of Indigenous and autonomous communities in Greenland and the Faroe Islands, and broader structural issues relating to equality, detention practices, migration policies, and institutional oversight, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/DNK/2).

While Greenland and the Faroe Islands benefit from recognised rights to self-determination and extensive autonomy arrangements, concerns persist regarding the full realisation of these rights in practice. In Greenland, these concerns are compounded by historical and structural factors, including documented human rights violations affecting Inuit communities, as well as ongoing challenges relating to access to culturally appropriate healthcare, high suicide rates, and inequalities in the provision of social services. Additional issues include the legacy of coercive practices, such as forced contraception affecting Greenlandic women and girls, and the need for comprehensive accountability, redress, and guarantees of non-repetition. These factors highlight the importance of addressing both historical injustices and present-day inequalities in a coherent and rights-based manner.

Concerns also arise regarding the effective participation of Indigenous communities in decision-making processes, particularly in relation to natural resource management, extractive activities, and climate policy. Ensuring respect for the principle of free, prior and informed consent remains essential, alongside guarantees that development projects do not undermine Indigenous rights, cultural identity, or livelihoods.

At the same time, broader developments raise concerns regarding the protection of fundamental freedoms within Denmark. Stakeholders have reported instances of restrictions on peaceful assembly, including the use of force in the policing of demonstrations and related detentions. These concerns are consistent with issues raised at the international level regarding the necessity and proportionality of law enforcement measures and their potential impact on civic space.

A significant legislative development concerns the amendment to the Danish Penal Code adopted in December 2023, introducing a prohibition on the “undue treatment” of writings or objects of significant religious importance. In a joint communication of 8 December 2023 (OL DNK 1/2023), Special Procedures mandate holders raised concerns regarding the compatibility of this amendment with international human rights law, particularly under Article 19 of the ICCPR, including risks related to vagueness, legal uncertainty, and potential chilling effects on freedom of expression. While the Government has defended the measure on national security grounds, questions remain regarding its necessity, proportionality, and consistency with international standards.

Additional structural concerns relate to equality and non-discrimination. International monitoring bodies have highlighted the use of categories such as “Western” and “non-Western” in legislation and policies, as well as the discriminatory impact of certain urban policies, which may contribute to stigmatization, marginalisation, and unequal treatment. Concerns regarding racial profiling, including the absence of a clear legal prohibition and gaps in data collection and accountability, further underscore the need to strengthen safeguards against discrimination.

Issues relating to detention and the administration of justice also remain significant. Concerns have been raised regarding the high use and duration of pretrial detention, restrictions on contact with the outside world, and practices such as solitary confinement and strip searches without individualized necessity. These issues raise questions regarding compliance with international standards on the treatment of persons deprived of liberty, including the principles of necessity, proportionality, and humane conditions of detention.

Migration and asylum policies constitute another area of concern. Developments relating to the externalisation of asylum procedures, the use of detention for migrants, restrictions on family reunification, and reliance on diplomatic assurances in return procedures raise important questions regarding compliance with international human rights and refugee law. The existence of restrictive regimes limiting access to work and freedom of movement for certain categories of migrants further highlights structural challenges in ensuring the full protection of rights.

Concerns also arise in relation to the rights of persons with disabilities. International bodies have identified issues including the continued use of coercive practices, limitations on legal capacity, insufficient implementation of supported decision-making frameworks, and barriers to inclusive education. These challenges point to the need for a comprehensive approach to equality and non-discrimination across all sectors.

With regard to engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, available information indicates that communications addressed to Denmark by Special Procedures between 2021 and 2024 have generally received substantive replies from the Government. According to available data, six communications were sent during the reporting period, of which five received responses. This pattern suggests that inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms are operational in practice and capable of preparing consolidated governmental replies, reflecting key functional elements associated with a National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up. However, it has not been possible to verify the formal establishment or clear designation of a comprehensive, standing NMIRF with a mandate for systematic tracking, implementation, and follow-up across all recommendations issued by international human rights mechanisms. The absence of such an institutionalised framework may affect long-term coherence, consistency, and transparency in implementation.

Denmark benefits from an established National Human Rights Institution, the Danish Institute for Human Rights, accredited with “A status” by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. While the institution has a broad mandate, international bodies have raised questions regarding aspects of its institutional framework, including safeguards relating to independence, appointment and removal procedures, and adequate resourcing. At the same time, limited publicly available evidence of independent and systematic follow-up by the NHRI to communications issued by Special Procedures raises questions regarding the visibility and practical impact of its engagement. In particular, there is no clear indication of separate public assessments, independent findings, or structured follow-up addressing concerns raised by mandate holders.

Taken together, these elements point to a complex situation in which strong institutional frameworks coexist with structural challenges relating to discrimination, detention practices, migration policies, Indigenous rights, and the implementation of international human rights obligations. These dynamics highlight the importance of ensuring that legal and policy frameworks are applied in a manner that fully respects international human rights standards while strengthening institutional coherence and accountability.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure that the right to self-determination of the peoples of Greenland and the Faroe Islands is fully realised in practice, including through effective participation in decision-making processes and full respect for the principle of free, prior and informed consent in matters affecting Indigenous communities.

·       Address historical injustices affecting Inuit communities, including by ensuring full investigation, accountability, and redress for past violations, and by strengthening culturally appropriate healthcare, mental health services, and social protection systems in Greenland.

·       Ensure that criminal law provisions affecting freedom of expression, including those relating to the protection of religious objects or writings, are clearly defined and applied in full conformity with the ICCPR, in particular the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.

·       Ensure that law enforcement responses to demonstrations are strictly necessary and proportionate, and subject to effective, independent oversight and accountability mechanisms.

·       Strengthen safeguards against discrimination, including by reviewing legislative and policy frameworks that may have discriminatory effects, prohibiting racial profiling, and improving data collection and accountability mechanisms.

·       Ensure that detention practices, including pretrial detention, solitary confinement, and restrictions on contact with the outside world, fully comply with international human rights standards, and expand the use of non-custodial measures.

·       Ensure that migration and asylum policies, including externalisation measures and detention practices, are fully consistent with international human rights and refugee law, including the principles of non-refoulement, necessity, and proportionality.

·       Strengthen the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities, including by eliminating coercive practices, ensuring full legal capacity, and promoting inclusive education and community-based support systems.

·       Ensure systematic and transparent follow-up to recommendations and communications issued by United Nations human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures, by strengthening both governmental coordination and the independent monitoring role of the National Human Rights Institution.

·       Strengthen the independence, resources, and institutional safeguards of the Danish Institute for Human Rights, in line with the Paris Principles, including through reforms addressing appointment procedures and operational capacity.

·       Consider establishing or clearly designating a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up, in line with Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33, to ensure coordinated, systematic, and effective implementation of international human rights obligations.

For PALAU (Date of consideration: Thursday 7 May 2026 – 14:30 – 18:00)

The situation in Palau can be understood in light of its particular vulnerability as a small island developing State, where climate change and environmental degradation have direct implications for the enjoyment of human rights, including economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as cultural preservation and community resilience.

Palau faces increasing challenges related to rising sea levels, coastal erosion, and the degradation of marine ecosystems, which directly affect access to housing, food security, water resources, and livelihoods. These impacts are particularly significant for coastal communities and those dependent on fisheries and natural resources, highlighting the close interconnection between environmental protection and the realisation of fundamental rights, as reflected in the OHCHR stakeholders’ summary (A/HRC/WG.6/52/PLW/3) and the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/PLW/2).

At the same time, climate change presents long-term structural challenges, including the risk of displacement and the potential need for planned relocation. In this regard, the absence of a comprehensive legal and institutional framework governing climate-induced relocation raises concerns regarding the protection of affected communities, access to land, and the safeguarding of cultural rights. As noted in the OHCHR compilation, vulnerable households face significant barriers to relocation, including limited land availability, financial constraints, and insufficient institutional support.

These environmental pressures are closely linked to broader governance and institutional challenges. While Palau has taken steps to strengthen its legal framework, including accession to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the OHCHR compilation highlights persistent gaps in implementation, including the absence of a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy, the need to re-establish the Office of the Ombudsman, and limitations in coordination among oversight bodies. These gaps may affect transparency, accountability, and the equitable delivery of public services, particularly in the context of increasing climate-related funding and development pressures.

These concerns have also been reflected in United Nations Special Procedures communications. In particular, AL PLW 1/2025 (17 October 2025) raised concerns regarding alleged environmental and human rights impacts linked to military construction projects, including deforestation, ecosystem degradation, risks to biodiversity, and the absence of adequate consultation and free, prior and informed consent of affected Indigenous communities. The communication further highlighted implications for cultural rights, traditional livelihoods, and the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

On 15 December 2025, the Government of Palau provided a response to this communication. While the reply emphasised national sovereignty and institutional arrangements, it did not substantively engage with the detailed allegations, suggesting that engagement with Special Procedures, although present, remains limited in depth and follow-up.

Beyond environmental concerns, significant structural challenges persist in relation to labour rights and non-discrimination. As reflected in the OHCHR compilation, migrant workers face multiple vulnerabilities, including restrictions on changing employers, substandard housing conditions, risks of exploitation, and limited access to effective remedies. Practices such as repatriation following labour disputes and barriers to accessing social security benefits further raise concerns regarding equality before the law and access to justice.

Related concerns arise in the context of trafficking in persons and exploitative labour practices. While legislative and policy measures have been adopted, operational challenges persist, including under-reporting, limited institutional capacity, insufficient victim protection mechanisms, and reliance on civil society organisations for support services. These gaps affect the effectiveness of prevention, identification, and response frameworks.

Additional concerns relate to the protection of women’s rights and gender equality. Gender-based violence remains a significant issue, with gaps in service availability, institutional capacity, and implementation of existing legal frameworks. The OHCHR compilation further highlights structural challenges in access to sexual and reproductive health services, including limited availability of services, low use of modern contraception, and the continued criminalisation of abortion without exceptions, raising concerns regarding women’s autonomy and access to healthcare.

Concerns also arise in relation to child protection and the right to education. Barriers affecting access to education for children of undocumented migrants, as well as the absence of explicit constitutional protection of the right to education, raise issues of non-discrimination and equal access. At the same time, the continued acceptance of corporal punishment and gaps in child protection frameworks further affect the realisation of children’s rights.

Additional structural challenges affect persons with disabilities, who face barriers in access to services, infrastructure, and legal protections, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons, who lack comprehensive protection against discrimination.

In the area of migration and international protection, the absence of a legal framework governing asylum and refugee protection, including the lack of safeguards for the principle of non-refoulement, raises concerns regarding the protection of persons in need of international protection. Furthermore, gaps in citizenship laws may place certain children at risk of statelessness, particularly where nationality cannot be acquired through parental lineage.

With regard to international human rights obligations, Palau has signed but not ratified several core human rights treaties, including the ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, CAT, and ICRMW, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation. This limits the extent to which international standards are formally incorporated into the domestic legal framework and contributes to gaps in protection across multiple areas identified above.

With regard to engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, the available record indicates that one communication was addressed to Palau during the reporting period, which received a reply. While this demonstrates the existence of coordination within the executive, the limited number of communications and the general nature of responses suggest that engagement is not yet systematic or fully oriented towards substantive follow-up and implementation. It has not been possible to verify that Palau has established or clearly designated a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up, as encouraged by Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33.

Palau does not currently have a National Human Rights Institution accredited by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. While administrative and judicial mechanisms provide some degree of protection, the absence of an independent institution limits systematic monitoring, reporting, and follow-up, including in relation to climate change, labour rights, gender-based violence, and discrimination. The OHCHR compilation further indicates limited civil society capacity in monitoring and reporting functions, reinforcing the need for strengthened institutional frameworks.

Taken together, these elements highlight a structural context in which environmental vulnerability, limited institutional capacity, gaps in legal frameworks, and inequalities affecting vulnerable groups intersect, underscoring the need for a comprehensive, rights-based approach to governance and development.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure that climate adaptation and resilience strategies are fully aligned with international human rights standards, including by developing a comprehensive legal and institutional framework for climate-induced displacement and planned relocation.

·       Ensure full respect for the principle of free, prior and informed consent in relation to development, infrastructure, and military projects affecting Indigenous communities, land, and natural resources.

·       Strengthen governance, transparency, and accountability frameworks, including by developing a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy and re-establishing independent oversight mechanisms such as the Office of the Ombudsman.

·       Strengthen the protection of migrant workers, including by addressing exploitative labour practices, improving access to remedies, ensuring adequate housing conditions, and eliminating discriminatory restrictions in labour and social security frameworks.

·       Enhance measures to prevent and address trafficking in persons, including by strengthening institutional capacity, victim protection mechanisms, and access to justice.

·       Strengthen the protection of women’s rights, including by addressing gender-based violence, improving access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, and aligning legal frameworks with international human rights standards.

·       Ensure equal access to education for all children, including those of migrant or undocumented status, and strengthen child protection frameworks, including the prohibition of corporal punishment.

·       Strengthen legal protections against discrimination affecting persons with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons.

·       Establish a legal and institutional framework for asylum and refugee protection, including guarantees of non-refoulement, and address risks of statelessness through legislative reform.

·       Consider ratifying core international human rights treaties, including the ICCPR, ICESCR, CEDAW, CAT, and ICRMW, to strengthen the legal framework for the protection of human rights.

·       Ensure systematic, coordinated, and substantive engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures, through detailed responses and follow-up.

·       Consider establishing an independent National Human Rights Institution in compliance with the Paris Principles.

·       Consider establishing or clearly designating a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up, in line with Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33.

·       Strengthen international cooperation and support, including financial and technical assistance, to address the human rights impacts of climate change in small island developing States.

For SOMALIA (Date of consideration: Friday 8 May 2026 – 09:00 – 12:30)

The situation in Somalia can be understood in light of the protracted armed conflict, persistent insecurity, and ongoing state-building challenges, and their combined impact on the protection of fundamental rights, including access to justice, freedom of expression, and the provision of basic services.

The security situation remains a central concern, with continued attacks by non-state armed groups, including Al-Shabaab, affecting civilian populations and undermining stability in several regions. These conditions contribute to widespread displacement, limit access to humanitarian assistance, and affect the delivery of essential services, including healthcare and education. The conduct of hostilities by all parties raises serious concerns regarding the protection of civilians, including reports of indiscriminate attacks, targeted killings, and violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law.

Concerns also arise regarding unlawful killings and the application of the death penalty. These issues have been raised in several United Nations Special Procedures communications, including JAL SOM 2/2024 (16 September 2024), which addressed allegations of executions carried out without the possibility of appeal, including cases involving individuals reportedly under the age of 18, and JAL SOM 2/2022 (4 August 2022), which raised concerns regarding executions carried out without access to legal representation. These cases highlight serious concerns regarding due process guarantees, the right to life, and compliance with international standards.

At the same time, governance challenges persist in the context of a federal system that continues to evolve. Institutional capacity remains limited, affecting the functioning of state institutions, including the judiciary and law enforcement, and raising concerns regarding access to justice, accountability, and the rule of law. Reports of torture and ill-treatment in detention, as well as patterns of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances, further highlight deficiencies in oversight and the administration of justice. These issues are also reflected in the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/SOM/2), which highlights the absence of a definition of torture aligned with international standards, widespread impunity, and deficiencies in detention oversight.

Additional structural concerns arise from the legal framework itself. The OHCHR compilation indicates that sharia law may prevail over international human rights obligations in cases of conflict, raising important questions regarding consistency with the ICCPR, particularly in areas such as equality, freedom of religion, and due process. It further highlights gaps in legislation, including the absence or delay in adopting laws on female genital mutilation, child rights, and juvenile justice, reinforcing concerns already identified regarding gender-based violence and child protection.

Concerns also arise regarding the application of counter-terrorism measures. Available information indicates that broadly defined offences and practices associated with counter-terrorism operations have led to arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention without charge, and limited access to legal safeguards, raising issues of legality, necessity, and proportionality.

Additional concerns relate to the protection of freedom of expression and civic space. Journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society actors continue to face threats, harassment, arbitrary arrest, and violence from both state and non-state actors. These concerns are reinforced by findings reflected in the OHCHR compilation, which points to restrictive legal provisions and practices contributing to self-censorship and a shrinking civic space.

Somalia faces severe challenges in relation to gender-based violence and the protection of women’s and girls’ rights. Conflict-related sexual violence, early and forced marriage, and limited access to justice and support services remain widespread, particularly among internally displaced populations. Female genital mutilation/cutting remains highly prevalent and is not yet comprehensively criminalised in line with international standards, as noted in the OHCHR compilation. Structural discrimination against women, including in access to justice and participation in public life, further affects the realisation of rights.

Concerns also arise in relation to child protection, including the recruitment and use of children by armed groups, child labour, and restricted access to education. Reports indicate that children are subjected to violence, exploitation, and recruitment, while access to education remains severely limited due to insecurity, displacement, and structural barriers.

Discrimination against minority clans and marginalised groups, including Bantu and other minority communities, remains a persistent concern. The OHCHR compilation highlights the lack of formal recognition of certain minority groups and their exclusion from access to justice, land, and services, contributing to structural marginalisation and impunity.

The humanitarian situation remains severe, with large numbers of internally displaced persons facing challenges in accessing adequate shelter, food, water, and healthcare. The OHCHR compilation confirms that millions remain in need of humanitarian assistance and highlights repeated forced evictions, lack of security of tenure, and limited access to basic services, particularly for internally displaced populations. Recurrent droughts and climate-related shocks further exacerbate vulnerabilities and contribute to food insecurity.

Corruption remains a significant cross-cutting challenge, undermining public trust, weakening institutions, and affecting the equitable delivery of services and humanitarian assistance. In addition, the continued reliance on traditional justice mechanisms in certain contexts contributes to impunity by shifting responsibility from individuals to clan structures, thereby limiting access to effective remedies.

Somalia does not currently have a National Human Rights Institution accredited by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. The OHCHR compilation further emphasises the need to establish key oversight bodies, including a national human rights commission, a judicial service commission, and an anti-corruption commission, as essential components for strengthening the rule of law and institutional accountability.

With regard to engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, the available record indicates that multiple Special Procedures communications were addressed to Somalia between 2021 and 2026, with only one recorded reply. This corresponds to a response rate of approximately 10–15 per cent, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation. This pattern indicates that engagement with Special Procedures is limited and inconsistent. In the absence of a clearly established and fully operational National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up, this uneven response pattern suggests that coordination of international human rights obligations remains fragmented and ad hoc rather than systematic and institutionalised.

Somalia has not established or clearly designated a comprehensive NMIRF, as encouraged by Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33. Available information indicates that reporting and follow-up rely on fragmented coordination among institutions rather than a single, dedicated mechanism with a clear mandate for systematic tracking and implementation of recommendations. This may affect coherence, consistency, and effectiveness in the implementation of international human rights obligations.

Taken together, these elements point to a situation in which conflict, structural legal gaps, weak institutional frameworks, and limited engagement with international mechanisms combine to affect the effective protection of human rights across multiple sectors.

In this context, Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure the ratification of outstanding core international human rights treaties, including CEDAW, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, and ensure their effective incorporation into domestic law.

·       Ensure that domestic legal frameworks, including the relationship between sharia law and statutory law, are fully aligned with international human rights obligations, particularly the ICCPR.

·       Strengthen state institutions and the rule of law, including by enhancing the capacity, independence, and effectiveness of the judiciary and improving access to justice across federal and regional levels.

·       Ensure the protection of civilians and full compliance with international human rights law and international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict.

·       Strengthen accountability mechanisms for violations of human rights and humanitarian law, including by addressing extrajudicial killings, executions without due process, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and torture.

·       Ensure that counter-terrorism legislation and practices comply with international standards, including the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality, and do not result in arbitrary detention or violations of due process.

·       Ensure that detention practices comply with international standards, including the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, and establish independent and effective oversight mechanisms for all places of detention.

·       Enhance the protection of journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society actors, ensuring that they can operate safely and without fear of harassment, arbitrary arrest, or reprisals.

·       Strengthen measures to prevent and address gender-based violence, including by criminalising female genital mutilation, combating early and forced marriage, and ensuring access to justice and comprehensive support services for survivors.

·       Strengthen child protection systems, including by preventing the recruitment and use of children by armed groups and ensuring access to education and social protection services.

·       Address discrimination against minority clans and marginalised communities, including through formal recognition, equal access to justice, and inclusive participation in public life.

·       Strengthen efforts to address internal displacement, including by preventing forced evictions and ensuring access to adequate housing, water, food, healthcare, and humanitarian assistance.

·       Strengthen anti-corruption measures and enhance transparency and accountability in public institutions.

·       Establish an independent National Human Rights Institution in compliance with the Paris Principles, alongside other key oversight bodies, including a judicial service commission and an anti-corruption commission.

·       Ensure systematic, coordinated, and substantive engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures, through the timely preparation and submission of comprehensive responses.

·       Consider establishing or clearly designating a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up, in line with Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33, to ensure coordinated, systematic, and effective implementation of international human rights obligations.

For SEYCHELLES (Date of consideration: Friday 8 May 2026 – 14:30 – 18:00)

The situation in Seychelles can be understood by examining recent developments relating to governance, the administration of justice, and accountability processes, and situating these within broader considerations affecting the protection of fundamental rights, including fair trial guarantees, judicial independence, and freedom of expression.

While Seychelles has undertaken institutional reforms, concerns have been raised regarding the functioning and perceived independence of the judiciary, particularly in the context of high-profile corruption and financial crime cases. These proceedings have drawn attention to issues relating to due process, including prolonged pretrial detention, access to legal representation, and delays in adjudication, as reflected in the OHCHR stakeholders’ summary (A/HRC/WG.6/52/SYC/3) and the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/SYC/2). Additional concerns relate to the broader framework of accountability and oversight, including the role and effectiveness of anti-corruption bodies and investigative mechanisms. Ensuring that such processes operate with full transparency, independence, and respect for procedural safeguards remains essential to maintaining public confidence in institutions and safeguarding the rule of law.

At the same time, issues relating to freedom of expression and the media environment remain relevant. While Seychelles maintains a pluralistic media landscape, structural concerns persist regarding the independence of media regulatory bodies, including the appointment process of the Seychelles Media Commission, which is largely influenced by the executive. These factors, combined with reported risks of self-censorship and constraints on independent reporting, particularly in matters related to governance and corruption, raise questions regarding the effective protection of freedom of expression.

Beyond governance-related concerns, Seychelles faces persistent challenges in addressing gender-based violence and ensuring the protection of women’s rights. Reports indicate high levels of domestic and sexual violence, alongside gaps in the effective implementation of legal protections, low conviction rates, and the limited availability of shelters, referral pathways, and specialised services for victims. These challenges raise concerns regarding access to justice, protection mechanisms, and prevention efforts.

Concerns also arise in relation to child protection, including instances of abuse and exploitation, as well as gaps in prevention, reporting, and support systems. While legislative developments are ongoing, effective implementation and institutional capacity remain uneven.

Serious concerns persist regarding conditions of detention. Monitoring findings indicate shortcomings in infrastructure, sanitation, ventilation, and overcrowding, as well as insufficient separation between remand detainees and convicted prisoners. In addition, limitations in independent monitoring, including restricted access of oversight bodies to places of detention, raise further concerns regarding compliance with international standards, including the Nelson Mandela Rules.

As a small island developing State, Seychelles is also exposed to the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation, including coastal erosion, rising sea levels, and pressures on natural resources. These factors have implications for the enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights, particularly for vulnerable communities, and highlight the need for integrated, rights-based climate governance frameworks.

These concerns have also been reflected in engagement with United Nations Special Procedures, albeit in a limited manner. In particular, OL SYC 1/2022 (11 March 2022) addressed issues relating to access to water and sanitation, including concerns regarding the legal framework and protection of vulnerable populations. While Seychelles has extended a standing invitation to Special Procedures since 5 November 2012, several visit requests remain pending and engagement has not been fully utilised in practice, limiting the potential for enhanced cooperation and independent assessment.

With regard to international obligations, Seychelles has ratified all nine core international human rights treaties, reflecting a strong formal commitment to the international human rights framework. However, it has not accepted several individual communications procedures under these treaties and has multiple overdue reports to treaty bodies. This gap between formal commitment and implementation indicates challenges in sustained engagement with international mechanisms and in fulfilling reporting obligations.

With regard to national coordination of international human rights obligations, Seychelles established a Human Rights Treaty Reporting Committee in 2023. While this represents an important step towards institutional coordination, available information indicates that the mechanism does not yet function as a fully effective and comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up (NMIRF). Challenges in meeting reporting deadlines and implementing recommendations suggest that coordination remains partial, fragmented, and not yet fully institutionalised.

Seychelles has established a National Human Rights Institution, the Seychelles Human Rights Commission; however, it does not currently hold accredited status under the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions and faces significant financial, technical, and operational constraints. These limitations raise concerns regarding its independence and its ability to effectively monitor, report, and follow up on human rights obligations in line with the Paris Principles. There is also limited publicly available evidence of independent and systematic engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures, through separate analyses or follow-up reporting.

Additional structural concerns arise in relation to the protection of migrant workers. Reports indicate risks of exploitation linked to the gainful occupation permit system, which creates dependency on employers and may expose workers to abusive conditions, including passport retention and unequal treatment, particularly in the Seychelles International Trade Zone. At the same time, the absence of a formal asylum system and reported cases of removal of individuals potentially in need of international protection raise concerns regarding compliance with the principle of non-refoulement.

Taken together, these elements highlight the importance of strengthening the rule of law, enhancing institutional independence and capacity, and ensuring that governance, accountability, migration, and environmental frameworks are implemented in full compliance with international human rights standards.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure that judicial proceedings, including in corruption-related cases, fully comply with international fair trial standards, including safeguards relating to pretrial detention, access to legal representation, and timely adjudication, while strengthening transparency and independence in judicial appointments and decision-making processes.

·       Strengthen the independence, mandate, and operational capacity of the Seychelles Human Rights Commission, with a view to achieving full compliance with the Paris Principles, including through adequate financial and institutional safeguards.

·       Ensure that anti-corruption mechanisms operate in full compliance with due process guarantees and are subject to independent oversight.

·       Guarantee full protection of freedom of expression, including by ensuring the independence of media regulatory bodies, preventing undue influence in appointment processes, and protecting journalists from pressure, interference, or reprisals.

·       Strengthen measures to prevent and address gender-based violence, including by ensuring the full operationalisation of existing legal frameworks, improving access to justice, and establishing comprehensive support services, including shelters and referral mechanisms.

·       Enhance child protection systems, including through effective prevention measures, improved reporting mechanisms, and strengthened support services.

·       Improve conditions of detention in line with international standards, including by addressing overcrowding, ensuring adequate infrastructure and sanitation, and guaranteeing independent monitoring and access for oversight bodies.

·       Ensure the protection of migrant workers, including by addressing risks of exploitation linked to employment systems, prohibiting practices such as passport retention, and ensuring equal labour protections in all sectors.

·       Establish a comprehensive legal and institutional framework for asylum, ensuring full respect for the principle of non-refoulement and access to fair and effective procedures.

·       Ensure systematic and timely engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including by addressing overdue treaty body reporting obligations and strengthening substantive responses to Special Procedures communications.

·       Strengthen national coordination for reporting and follow-up by developing a comprehensive and fully operational NMIRF, building on the existing Human Rights Treaty Reporting Committee, in line with Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33.

·       Enhance cooperation with United Nations Special Procedures, including by facilitating pending country visits and making full use of the standing invitation.

·       Integrate human rights into climate and environmental governance, including through coordinated national mechanisms ensuring inclusive, transparent, and accountable decision-making processes.

·       Strengthen measures to combat discrimination and ensure equality in law and in practice, including by addressing gaps in legal frameworks relating to education, nationality, and access to services for vulnerable groups.

For SOLOMON ISLANDS (Date of consideration: Monday 11 May 2026 – 09:00 – 12:30)

The situation in the Solomon Islands can be understood by examining the interaction between governance challenges, internal social tensions, and structural constraints affecting the delivery of essential services, alongside significant environmental vulnerability and its implications for the enjoyment of human rights.

Recent years have been marked by episodes of internal unrest, most notably the events of November 2021 in Honiara, which highlighted underlying regional, political, and socio-economic divisions, including tensions linked to perceptions of marginalisation and unequal development. These dynamics raise concerns regarding social cohesion, equitable development, and the inclusiveness of governance processes, as reflected in the OHCHR stakeholders’ summary (A/HRC/WG.6/52/SLB/3) and further supported by the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/SLB/2), which highlights structural inequalities, limited access to services, and governance constraints affecting vulnerable populations.

Additional considerations relate to governance and institutional frameworks. Stakeholders have raised concerns regarding constitutional and legislative gaps, including the absence of comprehensive anti-discrimination protections, the continued criminalisation of consensual same-sex relations, and discriminatory provisions affecting persons with disabilities in electoral participation. These issues point to broader challenges in aligning domestic legal frameworks with international human rights standards. At the same time, the OHCHR compilation indicates that constitutional reform processes remain delayed and may risk entrenching the precedence of customary norms over equality guarantees, particularly affecting women’s rights in areas such as land tenure, inheritance, and participation in public life.

Limited institutional capacity continues to affect governance, oversight, and service delivery, particularly in remote and geographically dispersed areas. Constraints in administrative capacity, infrastructure, and resources contribute to unequal access to healthcare, education, and basic services. The OHCHR compilation further highlights structural barriers to access to justice, particularly for rural women, Indigenous women, women with disabilities, and other marginalised groups, including limited access to legal aid, interpretation services, and judicial infrastructure.

Beyond governance challenges, the Solomon Islands faces persistent issues relating to gender-based violence and the protection of women’s rights. High levels of domestic and sexual violence have been reported, compounded by structural discrimination, limited access to justice, and gaps in enforcement of existing legislation. Customary practices, including bride price and unequal property rights, further contribute to the vulnerability of women. The OHCHR compilation confirms these concerns and highlights deficiencies in implementation of the Family Protection Act, insufficient protection mechanisms, and the need for stronger victim support services and enforcement of protection orders.

Concerns also arise in relation to child protection, including child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and exploitation. Stakeholders report that child marriage remains legally permissible under certain conditions, contributing to early pregnancies and school dropout, while domestic violence is often normalised in some contexts. The OHCHR compilation further indicates gaps in birth registration systems, child protection frameworks, and the absence of explicit legal prohibition of corporal punishment in educational settings.

Land rights and resource governance constitute a critical area of concern. Customary land systems, while central to identity and livelihoods, are affected by disputes linked to logging and mining activities. Stakeholders report environmental degradation, inequitable benefit-sharing, and insufficient consultation with affected communities. The OHCHR compilation further highlights the exclusion of women from decision-making in land and resource governance, as well as the absence of adequate safeguards addressing the gendered impacts of extractive industries. Additional concerns arise in relation to trafficking and exploitation risks associated with mining and logging activities, including insufficient regulatory frameworks and victim protection mechanisms.

Environmental vulnerability remains a defining structural challenge. The Solomon Islands is highly exposed to climate change impacts, including rising sea levels, coastal erosion, and displacement. Stakeholders highlight gaps in data, funding, and implementation of adaptation strategies, particularly for remote and atoll communities, as well as limited access to climate financing and relocation support. The OHCHR compilation further emphasises the need for gender-responsive climate policies and inclusive participation in environmental decision-making.

Additional concerns relate to discrimination and violence affecting persons of diverse sexual orientation and gender identity, reinforced by the criminalisation of same-sex relations and the absence of comprehensive protective legislation. Broader gaps also persist in labour protections, including the absence of comprehensive anti-discrimination provisions, unequal pay protections, and safeguards against workplace harassment, as well as in sexual and reproductive health rights, including restricted access to services and legal limitations affecting women’s autonomy.

The Solomon Islands does not currently have a National Human Rights Institution accredited by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. The OHCHR compilation confirms that the establishment of an independent NHRI in compliance with the Paris Principles has been repeatedly recommended, and its absence limits the capacity for systematic monitoring, reporting, and independent oversight.

With regard to engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, the available record indicates that no Special Procedures communications were addressed to the Solomon Islands between 2021 and 2026. While this absence may reflect limited engagement through this channel, it also reduces the visibility of country-specific concerns within the Special Procedures system. At the same time, the OHCHR compilation highlights significant gaps in treaty ratification, including the absence of ratification of key instruments such as the ICCPR and CAT, as well as persistent delays in reporting to treaty bodies, which further affect engagement with international human rights mechanisms.

The Solomon Islands has not established or clearly designated a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up (NMIRF), as encouraged by Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33. Available information indicates that coordination remains fragmented and ad hoc, without a dedicated mechanism for systematic tracking, implementation, and follow-up of recommendations.

Taken together, these elements point to the need for strengthened governance frameworks, inclusive policies, and enhanced institutional capacity to ensure the effective protection of rights, particularly in a context shaped by internal tensions, socio-economic disparities, legal and institutional gaps, and environmental vulnerability.

In this context, Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure alignment of constitutional and legislative frameworks with international human rights standards, including by addressing discriminatory provisions and ensuring that equality guarantees prevail over customary practices where these undermine human rights.

·       Promote social cohesion and inclusive governance by addressing underlying regional, political, and socio-economic disparities and ensuring meaningful public participation in decision-making processes.

·       Strengthen institutional capacity for governance, oversight, and service delivery, particularly in remote and underserved areas, including access to justice, legal aid, and judicial services.

·       Enhance equitable access to healthcare, education, and essential services across all regions, including by strengthening legal guarantees for the right to education and improving infrastructure and accessibility.

·       Strengthen measures to prevent and address gender-based violence, including through effective implementation of existing legislation, enforcement of protection mechanisms, and provision of comprehensive support services.

·       Eliminate harmful practices, including child marriage and bride price, and strengthen child protection systems, including birth registration, prevention of abuse, and access to services.

·       Ensure that land and resource governance frameworks fully respect community rights, including through meaningful consultation, the application of free, prior and informed consent, equitable benefit-sharing, and protection against environmental harm.

·       Strengthen regulatory frameworks governing extractive industries, including by addressing risks of exploitation and trafficking, ensuring human rights due diligence, and incorporating gender-responsive safeguards.

·       Promote equality and non-discrimination, including by decriminalising same-sex relations and adopting comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation.

·       Strengthen labour protections, including equal pay, protection against discrimination and harassment, and safeguards for workers in vulnerable sectors.

·       Ensure access to sexual and reproductive health services in line with international human rights standards, including addressing legal and practical barriers.

·       Strengthen national resilience to climate change through rights-based, inclusive, and gender-responsive adaptation strategies.

·       Consider establishing an independent National Human Rights Institution in compliance with the Paris Principles, with adequate resources and a broad mandate.

·       Strengthen engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including by addressing treaty ratification gaps, improving reporting to treaty bodies, and enhancing cooperation with Special Procedures.

·       Establish or clearly designate a comprehensive NMIRF, in line with Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33, to ensure coordinated, systematic, and effective implementation of international human rights obligations.

For LATVIA (Date of consideration: Monday 11 May 2026 - 14:30 - 18:00)

A closely related pattern to Estonia can be observed in Latvia, where issues concerning the treatment of the Russian-speaking minority intersect with language policy, political participation, and the application of national security frameworks, raising broader concerns regarding equality, non-discrimination, and the protection of fundamental freedoms.

The ongoing transition toward Latvian-only education by 2030 raises concerns regarding equal access to education and the protection of cultural rights. These concerns have been reflected not only in stakeholder submissions but also in multiple communications by United Nations Special Procedures. On 31 May 2021, JAL LVA 1/2021 raised concerns regarding legislative and policy measures affecting minority language use, particularly in education, and their potential impact on the enjoyment of minority linguistic rights. On 28 September 2022, JOL LVA 1/2022 further addressed the compatibility of education reforms with minority rights, cultural rights, and the right to education, including the adequacy of consultation with affected communities. These concerns are further corroborated in the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/LVA/2), which highlights that limitations on minority language education may be inconsistent with international human rights standards and risk resulting in indirect discrimination, particularly if they negatively affect educational outcomes and inclusion.

On 2 March 2023, JAL LVA 1/2023 raised concerns regarding the alleged undue use of criminal proceedings against human rights defenders, indicating a broader pattern in which legal frameworks may be applied in ways that affect civic space and advocacy. At the same time, broader concerns have been raised regarding restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly, and minority-related advocacy, including reports of prosecutions, administrative measures, and legal restrictions affecting activists, journalists, and civil society actors, as reflected in the OHCHR stakeholders’ summary (A/HRC/WG.6/52/LVA/3). These concerns align with findings in the OHCHR compilation, which emphasises the need to ensure full protection of freedom of expression, prevent harassment and intimidation of journalists, and avoid disproportionate restrictions under security-related legislation.

The case of Mr Aleksejs Rosļikovs, a former member of the Saeima and leader of the political party For Stability!, illustrates these concerns. Criminal proceedings were initiated by the Latvian State Security Service (VDD) in June 2025 in connection with statements made in parliament addressing language policy and minority inclusion, raising questions regarding the protection of parliamentary speech and related immunities. The proceedings were reportedly based on suspicions of assisting a foreign state and inciting national or ethnic hatred. He was briefly detained and subsequently released under restrictive measures, including a prohibition on leaving the country and changing his place of residence.

Subsequent developments indicate an escalation. In February 2026, Mr Rosļikovs publicly reported discovering objects in his vehicle that he described as tapping and tracking devices. On 9 April 2026, the Riga City Court issued an arrest warrant after he was no longer present in Latvia and reportedly located abroad. He has since resigned as leader of the For Stability! party, indicating that the proceedings were adversely affecting its activities. The criminal case continues, primarily on charges related to incitement of ethnic hatred, while earlier, more serious allegations appear to have been narrowed during the course of the proceedings.

This case reflects a broader pattern in which criminal proceedings, preventive measures, and intrusive investigative actions may be applied in ways that restrict freedom of expression, including parliamentary speech, freedom of movement, and effective political participation. These concerns are consistent with broader United Nations findings highlighting the need to safeguard participation in public affairs, including by minorities and long-term residents, and to ensure that legal frameworks do not undermine democratic engagement.

Beyond these dynamics, additional human rights concerns persist. Gender-based violence remains a significant issue, with reports of domestic and sexual violence and ongoing challenges in ensuring effective protection mechanisms, access to justice, and support services for survivors. On 7 November 2025, JOL LVA 1/2025 raised concerns about the potential human rights impact of Latvia’s decision to initiate withdrawal from the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention, particularly in relation to the protection of women and girls from violence. Structural discrimination also affects certain groups, including Roma communities, who continue to face barriers in access to education, employment, housing, and social services, as well as persons with disabilities, who encounter limitations in accessibility, inclusion, and equal participation in public life. The OHCHR compilation further highlights persistent discrimination against Roma and the need for comprehensive anti-discrimination frameworks and targeted measures to ensure equal access to rights.

Latvia benefits from an established National Human Rights Institution (NHRI), the Ombudsman of Latvia (Tiesībsargs), which is accredited with “A status” by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), indicating full compliance with the Paris Principles. The institution has a broad mandate to promote and protect human rights, including the review of legislation and administrative practices. At the same time, the OHCHR compilation underscores the need to ensure that the Ombudsman is able to operate fully independently, with adequate resources and safeguards, in order to effectively carry out its mandate.

With regard to engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, the record of communications addressed to Latvia between 2021 and 2025 indicates that all such communications have received substantive replies from the Government, suggesting that inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms are operational in practice for the preparation and submission of consolidated governmental responses. This reflects the existence of functional elements consistent with a National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up (NMIRF). However, it has not been possible to verify the formal establishment or clear designation of a comprehensive, standing mechanism with a defined mandate for systematic tracking, implementation, and follow-up across all United Nations human rights mechanisms, as encouraged by Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33.

At the same time, limited publicly available evidence of independent engagement by the Ombudsman in relation to these communications raises questions regarding the visibility and effectiveness of the NHRI’s role. In particular, there is no indication of separate public assessments, independent replies, or structured follow-up reports presenting the Ombudsman’s own findings in response to concerns raised by Special Procedures. In light of the institution’s “A status” under the Paris Principles, which entails a proactive role in monitoring, reporting, and follow-up, this may affect the independence and practical impact of its contribution to international human rights processes, particularly in cases involving sensitive issues such as national security, minority rights, and civic space.

Taken together, these elements raise concerns regarding the application of national security and legal frameworks in a manner that may disproportionately affect minority-related political expression and democratic participation, alongside broader structural challenges relating to equality, non-discrimination, judicial safeguards, and the effective implementation of international human rights obligations.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure that legislation and policies relating to language and education, including the transition toward Latvian-only instruction, are implemented in full compliance with international human rights standards, in particular Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, guaranteeing equal access to education, the protection of minority linguistic rights, and meaningful consultation with affected communities.

·       Ensure that national security and criminal law provisions are not applied in a manner that restricts peaceful expression, parliamentary speech, or minority-related advocacy, and that such measures strictly comply with the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

·       Guarantee that criminal proceedings and preventive measures, including restrictions on movement and surveillance practices, are subject to strict judicial oversight, are time-bound, and do not disproportionately interfere with political participation, including the functioning of opposition parties and elected representatives.

·       Ensure full protection of freedom of expression, assembly, and association, including by preventing the use of legal and administrative measures that may produce a chilling effect on journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society actors, particularly those working on minority-related issues.

·       Strengthen safeguards for participation in public affairs, including by ensuring that minorities and long-term residents are able to effectively engage in political processes, in line with Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

·       Strengthen measures to prevent and address gender-based violence, including by ensuring continued alignment with international standards and frameworks for the protection of women and girls, and by guaranteeing access to justice and comprehensive support services for survivors.

·       Address structural discrimination affecting Roma communities, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups, including through the adoption and effective implementation of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation and targeted inclusion policies.

·       Ensure that any use of surveillance or intrusive investigative measures is governed by clear, accessible, and foreseeable legal frameworks, subject to strict necessity and proportionality requirements and effective independent oversight.

·       Ensure the full independence, visibility, and effectiveness of the National Human Rights Institution, including by strengthening its capacity to engage independently with United Nations human rights mechanisms, produce public assessments, and conduct systematic follow-up to recommendations and communications in accordance with the Paris Principles.

·       Ensure systematic, coordinated, and transparent follow-up to recommendations and communications issued by United Nations human rights mechanisms, including Special Procedures, by strengthening both governmental coordination and independent monitoring.

·       Consider establishing or clearly designating a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up, in line with Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33, with a clear mandate for systematic tracking, implementation, and follow-up across all international human rights obligations.

For SIERRA LEONE (Date of consideration: Tuesday 12 May 2026 – 09:00 – 12:30)

The situation in Sierra Leone can be understood by examining the persistent gap between progressive legal and policy frameworks and their effective implementation, particularly in relation to access to justice, gender-based violence, and the realisation of economic, social, and cultural rights.

Sierra Leone has undertaken a range of legislative and policy reforms in recent years, including measures aimed at strengthening gender equality, child protection, and the justice system. However, significant challenges remain in translating these frameworks into effective protection in practice. As reflected in the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/SLE/2), implementation gaps continue to affect the enjoyment of fundamental rights across multiple sectors.

Gender-based violence, including domestic violence and sexual offences, remains widespread, with survivors facing persistent barriers in accessing justice, protection mechanisms, and support services. These challenges are compounded by social stigma, limited institutional capacity, and uneven enforcement of existing laws. In this context, harmful practices such as female genital mutilation/cutting remain highly prevalent. Notably, despite legislative reforms, the practice has not been explicitly criminalised, and in July 2025 the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States found Sierra Leone in violation of the rights of women and girls for failing to prohibit it. This highlights a significant gap between legal commitments and effective protection.

Additional concerns relate to child protection. While recent legislation, including the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2024 and the Child Rights Act 2025, strengthens the legal framework, inconsistencies between statutory, customary, and religious law continue to create protection gaps. Child marriage, teenage pregnancy, and barriers to education remain significant challenges, particularly for girls, and affect long-term socio-economic opportunities.

Structural inequalities continue to affect access to basic services, including water and sanitation, healthcare, and education. These challenges are particularly pronounced in rural and low-income communities. Despite policy initiatives and development strategies, approximately 60 per cent of the population lives in multidimensional poverty, underscoring the scale of socio-economic vulnerability and its impact on the enjoyment of rights. In addition, gaps in civil registration, including birth registration, continue to limit access to education, social protection, and justice for a significant proportion of children.

Challenges also persist in the functioning of the justice system. While reforms such as the Criminal Procedure Act 2024 and the Justice Sector Reform Strategy (2024–2028) aim to improve efficiency and access, delays in judicial proceedings, limited access to legal aid, and constraints in institutional capacity remain significant obstacles. Conditions of detention continue to raise serious concerns, including overcrowding, inadequate sanitation, and insufficient access to healthcare, despite some initiatives aimed at addressing these issues.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the conduct of security forces, including allegations of excessive use of force, arbitrary arrests, and lack of accountability, particularly in the context of public demonstrations. These issues have been highlighted by international human rights mechanisms and reflect broader challenges in ensuring compliance with international standards on the use of force and protection of fundamental freedoms.

Corruption and governance challenges remain cross-cutting issues affecting the effective realisation of human rights. Weak accountability mechanisms and limited transparency continue to undermine public trust, service delivery, and access to justice. In parallel, the constitutional review process, which has been ongoing for several years, remains incomplete, raising concerns regarding inclusiveness, accountability, and alignment with international human rights standards.

With regard to international obligations, Sierra Leone has not yet ratified several key human rights instruments, including the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR on the abolition of the death penalty, and the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR. This limits the scope of international protection and accountability in areas directly relevant to the concerns identified.

In terms of engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, the available record indicates that multiple Special Procedures communications have been addressed to Sierra Leone between 2022 and 2026, none of which show recorded replies in the publicly available database. This absence of reflected responses affects transparency and suggests that engagement remains limited and inconsistent. While Sierra Leone maintains a standing invitation to Special Procedures, no visits have taken place during the reporting period, and several requests remain pending, indicating underutilisation of available cooperation frameworks.

Similarly, significant delays persist in reporting to treaty bodies, with multiple reports overdue across key instruments. This further reflects structural challenges in coordination and follow-up.

At the national level, Sierra Leone has established a National Human Rights Institution, the Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone, accredited with “A status” by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. While the Commission plays an important role in monitoring and reporting, concerns remain regarding its operational independence, resource constraints, and capacity to ensure systematic follow-up and nationwide coverage.

With regard to coordination of international human rights obligations, steps have been taken towards establishing reporting and follow-up structures. However, a comprehensive and fully operational National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up has not yet been clearly established. Existing coordination remains fragmented and does not ensure systematic tracking, implementation, and follow-up of recommendations across mechanisms.

Taken together, these elements point to a structural pattern in which legislative and policy advances are not yet matched by effective implementation, institutional capacity, and accountability, particularly in areas affecting women, children, and vulnerable populations.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure the effective implementation of existing laws and policies addressing gender-based violence, including by strengthening enforcement, improving access to justice, and expanding comprehensive support services for survivors, while adopting explicit legislation criminalising female genital mutilation in line with regional and international standards.

·       Take effective measures to address child marriage and teenage pregnancy, including through full implementation of recent legislation, harmonisation of statutory, customary, and religious frameworks, and ensuring continued access to education for girls.

·       Strengthen the capacity, independence, and efficiency of the justice system, including through full implementation of recent reforms, reduction of judicial delays, and expansion of access to legal aid.

·       Improve detention conditions and address prison overcrowding, ensuring compliance with international standards, including access to healthcare, sanitation, and humane treatment.

·       Ensure that law enforcement and security forces operate in full compliance with international standards on the use of force, and strengthen independent accountability mechanisms for violations.

·       Address structural inequalities in access to healthcare, education, water, and social protection, particularly for vulnerable and rural populations, and strengthen measures to reduce multidimensional poverty.

·       Strengthen civil registration systems, including universal birth registration, to ensure access to rights, services, and legal identity.

·       Enhance transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption measures across public institutions, particularly in relation to service delivery and resource management.

·       Strengthen the independence, resources, and operational capacity of the National Human Rights Institution to enable effective nationwide monitoring and follow-up.

·       Ensure systematic, coordinated, and substantive engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including by responding to all Special Procedures communications and facilitating country visits.

·       Address delays in treaty body reporting and strengthen institutional capacity to ensure timely compliance with reporting obligations.

·       Consider ratifying outstanding international human rights instruments, including those relating to enforced disappearances, migrant workers, and economic, social, and cultural rights, to strengthen the normative framework for protection.

·       Finalize the constitutional review process through an inclusive and participatory approach aligned with international human rights standards.

·       Establish or clearly designate a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up, in line with Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33, to ensure coordinated, systematic, and effective implementation of international human rights obligations.

For SINGAPORE (Date of consideration: Tuesday 12 May 2026 – 14:30 – 18:00) 

The situation in Singapore can be understood by examining the regulatory framework governing public discourse, civic space, and public order, and situating it within broader considerations relating to the exercise of fundamental freedoms, equality and non-discrimination, and the protection of labour rights, particularly for migrant workers.

Singapore maintains a highly regulated legal environment, including legislation governing freedom of expression, assembly, and online communication. Laws such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), the Public Order Act, and the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA) provide the authorities with broad powers to regulate public discourse, assemblies, and external influence. These frameworks are generally justified by the authorities on grounds of public order, national security, and the preservation of social and racial harmony. However, their scope and application have raised concerns regarding their potential impact on freedom of expression, media independence, and political participation, as reflected in the OHCHR stakeholders’ summary (A/HRC/WG.6/52/SGP/3) and the OHCHR compilation (A/HRC/WG.6/52/SGP/2). In particular, concerns have been raised that broadly framed legislation may, in practice, result in intimidation, arrest, or prosecution of journalists, human rights defenders, and political actors for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

These concerns have also been reflected in communications addressed by United Nations Special Procedures. In particular, JOL SGP 1/2021 (08 December 2021) addressed provisions of the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Bill, raising issues related to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and privacy. Subsequent communications, including JAL SGP 11/2022 (17 November 2022) and JAL SGP 1/2023 (27 March 2023), raised concerns regarding the treatment of human rights defenders, including investigations and alleged judicial harassment linked to their advocacy activities.

Additional concerns arise in relation to the continued use of the death penalty, particularly for drug-related offences. Numerous communications have addressed individual cases involving imminent executions, including JUA SGP 3/2023 (25 July 2023), JUA SGP 2/2024 (19 November 2024), and JUA SGP 1/2025 (22 January 2025), raising concerns regarding the application of mandatory sentencing, fair trial guarantees, and the treatment of individuals with disabilities or other vulnerabilities. These concerns are further reinforced by findings in the OHCHR compilation, which highlight disproportionate impacts on certain minority groups and call for a moratorium with a view to abolition, as well as concerns regarding the continued use of corporal punishment such as judicial caning.

At the same time, broader structural concerns arise in relation to equality and non-discrimination. Despite the existence of sectoral protections, Singapore has not adopted comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation aligned with international standards, including a definition of racial discrimination covering both direct and indirect forms. The OHCHR compilation further highlights concerns regarding racial disparities in the criminal justice system, including the overrepresentation of certain minority groups, particularly Malays, among persons sentenced to the death penalty and subjected to corporal punishment. These patterns raise questions regarding equality before the law and non-discrimination in the administration of justice.

Concerns have also been raised regarding labour rights and the situation of migrant workers. In particular, JAL SGP 10/2022 (03 October 2022) addressed allegations relating to restrictions affecting migrant workers, including limitations on mobility and potential discriminatory practices. These concerns are further substantiated by the OHCHR compilation, which highlights issues such as restrictions on changing employers, withholding of passports, inadequate labour protections, recruitment-related debt, and barriers to access to justice and remedies. These factors contribute to heightened vulnerability and risk of exploitation, particularly among migrant domestic workers.

Further communications have addressed the extraterritorial human rights impact of business activities linked to Singapore-based entities. For example, JAL SGP 5/2023 (20 December 2023) raised concerns regarding environmental and Indigenous rights in relation to a large-scale conservation agreement affecting Indigenous lands, while JAL SGP 6/2025 (26 June 2025) and JAL SGP 3/2025 (02 September 2025) addressed potential human rights impacts linked to infrastructure and energy projects abroad. These developments underscore the relevance of business and human rights obligations, including corporate due diligence, in a globalised economic context.

In addition, corporal punishment in the form of judicial caning remains part of the criminal justice system and is applied to a range of offences. This practice raises concerns under international standards relating to the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Further concerns arise in relation to the situation of persons with disabilities, including reports of involuntary detention, forced treatment, and the use of restraints or other coercive measures in institutional settings, as well as barriers to access to justice and participation in legal proceedings, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation.

Singapore has also not ratified several core international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture, and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation. This limits the scope of binding international obligations in key areas addressed in the present analysis.

Singapore does not currently have a National Human Rights Institution accredited by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, indicating the absence of a dedicated, independent body compliant with the Paris Principles. The establishment of such an institution has been recommended by multiple treaty bodies, as reflected in the OHCHR compilation. While existing institutions provide certain oversight functions, they do not possess the independence, mandate, or capacity required for comprehensive and systematic monitoring of human rights across sectors.

With regard to engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, the available record indicates that more than twenty-five communications were addressed to Singapore between 2021 and 2025, with a substantial proportion receiving replies from the Government. This demonstrates the existence of coordination mechanisms capable of preparing and submitting responses. However, replies are not consistently reflected across all communications, and Singapore has not issued a standing invitation to Special Procedures, with several visit requests remaining outstanding. This pattern suggests that engagement, while present, remains selective and not fully systematic.

Singapore has not established or clearly designated a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up, as encouraged by Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33. Available information indicates that reporting and follow-up rely on coordination among relevant government institutions rather than a single, dedicated mechanism with a clear mandate for systematic coordination, tracking, and implementation of recommendations. This may affect the overall coherence, consistency, and transparency of engagement with international human rights obligations.

Taken together, these elements highlight the importance of ensuring that regulatory frameworks governing public order and national security are implemented in a manner that fully respects international human rights standards, while addressing structural gaps in equality, institutional oversight, and protection frameworks for vulnerable groups, including migrant workers and persons with disabilities.

In this context, UN Member States may wish to consider recommendations along the following lines:

·       Ensure that all legislation regulating freedom of expression, including laws governing online content, public assembly, and foreign influence, is applied in full conformity with international human rights standards, in particular the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality, and is not used to restrict peaceful expression, media activity, or civic engagement.

·       Review and, where necessary, revise provisions under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, the Public Order Act, and the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act to ensure that their scope and application comply with international standards and do not produce undue restrictions or chilling effects on public discourse.

·       Take concrete steps toward limiting the application of the death penalty, including by ensuring full compliance with international fair trial guarantees, eliminating mandatory sentencing provisions, and considering the establishment of a moratorium with a view to abolition.

·       Review the use of corporal punishment, including judicial caning, with a view to ensuring compliance with international standards prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

·       Adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation aligned with international standards, including a definition of discrimination covering both direct and indirect forms, and ensure equal protection before the law for all individuals, including minority groups.

·       Address disparities in the criminal justice system, including through the collection and publication of disaggregated data and the adoption of safeguards to prevent discriminatory outcomes in sentencing and law enforcement practices.

·       Strengthen the protection of migrant workers by ensuring fair and non-discriminatory labour conditions, removing undue restrictions on mobility and change of employer, prohibiting the withholding of passports, and guaranteeing effective access to complaint and remedy mechanisms without fear of retaliation.

·       Ensure effective access to justice for all individuals, including migrant workers and persons with disabilities, through adequate procedural safeguards, legal assistance, and equal participation in judicial proceedings.

·       Ensure that all practices relating to involuntary detention and treatment of persons with disabilities comply with international human rights standards, including by eliminating coercive practices and strengthening safeguards for autonomy and informed consent.

·       Ensure that business activities and supply chains under national jurisdiction or control comply with international human rights standards, including through the effective implementation of human rights due diligence.

·       Take steps toward ratifying core international human rights treaties, including the ICCPR, ICESCR, CAT, and the Migrant Workers Convention.

·       Establish an independent National Human Rights Institution in full compliance with the Paris Principles, with a mandate to monitor, promote, and protect human rights across all sectors.

·       Ensure systematic, coordinated, and transparent engagement with United Nations human rights mechanisms, including by responding to all Special Procedures communications and extending a standing invitation to mandate holders.

·       Consider establishing or clearly designating a comprehensive National Mechanism for Implementation, Reporting and Follow-up, in line with Human Rights Council resolutions 42/30 and 51/33.

·       This structure is consistent with established United Nations drafting practice and maintains clarity, authority, and coherence without unnecessary repetition.

#UPR52 #UniversalPeriodicReview #HumanRights #JPTi #HRC #Geneva #HumanRightsAdvocacy #InternationalLaw #RuleOfLaw #HumanRightsMechanisms #OHCHR #SpecialProcedures #NMIRF #NHRI #Accountability #Equality #CivicSpace #FreedomOfExpression #MinorityRights #IndigenousRights #GenderEquality #AccessToJustice #HumanRightsReform #GlobalGovernance #Namibia #Niger #Mozambique #Estonia #Paraguay #Belgium #Denmark #Palau #Somalia #Seychelles #SolomonIslands #Latvia #SierraLeone #Singapore